linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: i8042 - Prevent intermixing i8042 commands

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:18:23 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Raul E Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "S, Shirish" <Shirish.S@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: i8042 - Prevent intermixing i8042 commands

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:12 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:52 PM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org> wrote:

...

> > +       mutex_lock(&i8042_mutex);
> > +
> >         spin_lock_irqsave(&i8042_lock, flags);
> >         retval = __i8042_command(param, command);
> >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i8042_lock, flags);
> >
> > +        mutex_unlock(&i8042_mutex);
>
> Question 1. Why do you need mutex at all in the above situation? Spin
> lock isn't enough?
>
> ...
>
> > -       i8042_lock_chip();
> > -
> >         if (value == LED_OFF)
> >                 i8042_command(NULL, CLEVO_MAIL_LED_OFF);
> >         else if (value <= LED_HALF)
> >                 i8042_command(NULL, CLEVO_MAIL_LED_BLINK_0_5HZ);
> >         else
> >                 i8042_command(NULL, CLEVO_MAIL_LED_BLINK_1HZ);
> > -
> > -       i8042_unlock_chip();
> > -
>
> Now, these three commands are not considered as a transaction (no
> atomicity). That's why your patch is wrong.

Ah, I didn't pay attention that this is one command call. But still Q1 is valid.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko