linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: fix system hang problem after resume"

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:   Sat, 03 Aug 2019 04:55:08 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: fix system hang problem after resume"

Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> writes:

> + Doug, Matthias, who are seeing problems (or, failure to try to
> recover, as predicted below)
> + Amit's new email
> + new maintainers
>
> Perhaps it's my fault for marking this RFC. But I changed the status
> back to "New" in Patchwork, in case that helps:

But I still see it marked as RFC. So the patch in question is:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9657277/

Changing the patchwork state to RFC means that it's dropped and out of
my radar. Also, if I see "RFC" in the subject I assume that's a patch
which I should not apply by default.

> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 01:21:36PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> This reverts commit 437322ea2a36d112e20aa7282c869bf924b3a836.
>> 
>> This above-mentioned "fix" does not actually do anything to prevent a
>> race condition. It simply papers over it so that the issue doesn't
>> appear.
>> 
>> If this is a real problem, it should be explained better than the above
>> commit does, and an alternative, non-racy solution should be found.
>> 
>> For further reason to revert this: there's ot reason we can't try
>
> s/ot/no/
>
> ...oops.
>
>> resetting the card when it's *actually* stuck in host-sleep mode. So
>> instead, this is unnecessarily creating scenarios where we can't recover
>> Wifi.
>> 
>> Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
>> ---
>> Amit, please take a look. AIUI, your "fix" is wrong, and quite racy. If you
>> still think it's needed, can you please propose an alternative? Or at least
>> explain more why this is needed? Thanks.
>
> FWIW, I got an Acked-by from Amit when he was still at Marvell. And
> another Reviewed-by from Dmitry. This still applies. Should I resend?
> (I'll do that if I don't hear a response within a few days.)

This patch is from 2017 so better to resend, and without RFC markings.

-- 
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches