linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the rcu tree

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, 29 Oct 2019 03:08:44 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ryan Attard <ryanattard@...nattard.info>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the rcu tree

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:08:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   81db81f82993 ("drivers/scsi: Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace()")
> 
> from the rcu tree and commit:
> 
>   d188b0675b21 ("scsi: core: Add sysfs attributes for VPD pages 0h and 89h")
> 
> from the scsi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Looks good to me, thank you very much!

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> index cc51f4756077,0fa2ed343c7f..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> @@@ -466,12 -467,18 +467,18 @@@ static void scsi_device_dev_release_use
>   	sdev->request_queue = NULL;
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&sdev->inquiry_mutex);
>  -	rcu_swap_protected(sdev->vpd_pg0, vpd_pg0,
>  -			   lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>  -	rcu_swap_protected(sdev->vpd_pg80, vpd_pg80,
>  -			   lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>  -	rcu_swap_protected(sdev->vpd_pg83, vpd_pg83,
>  -			   lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>  -	rcu_swap_protected(sdev->vpd_pg89, vpd_pg89,
>  -			   lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
> ++	vpd_pg0 = rcu_replace_pointer(sdev->vpd_pg0, vpd_pg0,
> ++				      lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>  +	vpd_pg80 = rcu_replace_pointer(sdev->vpd_pg80, vpd_pg80,
>  +				       lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>  +	vpd_pg83 = rcu_replace_pointer(sdev->vpd_pg83, vpd_pg83,
>  +				       lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
> ++	vpd_pg89 = rcu_replace_pointer(sdev->vpd_pg89, vpd_pg89,
> ++				       lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex));
>   	mutex_unlock(&sdev->inquiry_mutex);
>   
> + 	if (vpd_pg0)
> + 		kfree_rcu(vpd_pg0, rcu);
>   	if (vpd_pg83)
>   		kfree_rcu(vpd_pg83, rcu);
>   	if (vpd_pg80)