linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ASoC: audio-graph: Identify 'no

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]

Message-ID: <e9698ac3-0a2e-08a2-3f78-b0be0069d6ee@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:23:11 +0530
From:   Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>
To:     Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
CC:     <broonie@...nel.org>, <perex@...ex.cz>, <tiwai@...e.com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <sharadg@...dia.com>,
        <mkumard@...dia.com>, <viswanathl@...dia.com>,
        <rlokhande@...dia.com>, <dramesh@...dia.com>,
        <atalambedu@...dia.com>, <nwartikar@...dia.com>,
        <swarren@...dia.com>, <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ASoC: audio-graph: Identify 'no_pcm' DAI links for
 DPCM

Hi Morimoto-san,

>>> Yes, I'm posting fixup patch.
>>>
>>>           https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11719919/
>> Just curious that why snd_soc_find_dai() itself cannot be protected,
>> instead of leaving this to callers.
> Because, snd_soc_find_dai() is called both with/without client_mutex.
> (same/sof are calling it with mutex, simple-card/audio-graph are calling without mutex)
>
> Other solution is create both snd_soc_find_dai_with_mutex()/without_mutex().
> I'm not sure which style is best.

I don't know how complex it is to have a unified solution. But if we can 
protect snd_soc_find_dai() itself, things would be simpler may be in 
long term. Right now there are separate source files for soc-core, 
soc-dai and soc-component, but because of two approaches looks like the 
function need to be moved around and need to be placed in soc-core. Also 
the issue might go unnoticed if LOCKDEP is not enabled.

May be start with a wrapper for now and eventually unify?

Thanks,
Sameer.