linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Initialize completion before possible interrupt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:30:48 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Initialize completion before
 possible interrupt

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:26:37PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
 > Let's rephrase it: you think therefore that completion should be
> > initialzed *after* requesting shared interrupts? You think that exactly
> > that order shall be used in the source code?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
> >
> 
> I think that completion should be initialized before it is used, just
> like any other variable. So far you have not proven any code path
> through which it can be used uninitialized, therefore I don't see why
> this should be accepted as a bug fix. Cleanup, cosmetic refactoring,
> design patterns, whatever, sure.

Sure, let it call then cleanup, cosmetic refactoring.

Best regards,
Krzysztof