linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] ASoC: TDA7802: Add turn-on diagnostic routine

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:28:11 +0100
From:   Thomas Preston <thomas.preston@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Kirill Marinushkin <kmarinushkin@...dec.tech>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>,
        Annaliese McDermond <nh6z@...z.net>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Cheng-Yi Chiang <cychiang@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] ASoC: TDA7802: Add turn-on diagnostic
 routine

On 30/07/2019 16:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Thomas Preston wrote:
>> On 30/07/2019 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> It is unclear what this mutex usefully protects, it only gets taken when
>>> writing to the debugfs file to trigger this diagnostic mode but doesn't
>>> do anything to control interactions with any other code path in the
>>> driver.
> 
>> If another process reads the debugfs node "diagnostic" while the turn-on 
>> diagnostic mode is running, this mutex prevents the second process
>> restarting the diagnostics.
> 
>> This is redundant if debugfs reads are atomic, but I don't think they are.
> 
> Like I say it's not just debugfs though, there's the standard driver
> interface too.
> 

Ah right, I understand. So if we run the turn-on diagnostics routine, there's
nothing stopping anyone from interacting with the device in other ways.

I guess there's no way to share that mutex with ALSA? In that case, it doesn't
matter if this mutex is there or not - this feature is incompatible. How
compatible do debugfs interfaces have to be? I was under the impression anything
goes. I would argue that the debugfs is better off for having the mutex so
that no one re-reads "diagnostic" within the 5s poll timeout.

Alternatively, this diagnostic feature could be handled with an external-handler
kcontrol SOC_SINGLE_EXT? I'm not sure if this is an atomic interface either.

What would be acceptable?