linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] xen/events: unmask a fifo event channel only if it was masked

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]

Message-ID: <72cb09c0-4fc7-f02e-c1fb-314e5add381f@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:28:45 +0200
From:   Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xen/events: unmask a fifo event channel only if it
 was masked

On 22.10.20 09:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.10.2020 09:42, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/xen/events/events_fifo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/xen/events/events_fifo.c
>> @@ -236,6 +236,9 @@ static bool clear_masked_cond(volatile event_word_t *word)
>>   
>>   	w = *word;
>>   
>> +	if (!(w & (1 << EVTCHN_FIFO_MASKED)))
>> +		return true;
> 
> Maybe better move this ...
> 
>>   	do {
>>   		if (w & (1 << EVTCHN_FIFO_PENDING))
>>   			return false;
>>
> 
> ... into the loop, above this check?

Yes, that should be better.


Juergen