linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-pcm: protect BE dailink state changes in trigger

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, 26 Aug 2021 14:24:19 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     Mark@...ena.org.uk, Brown@...ena.org.uk,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        vkoul@...nel.org,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        tiwai@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-pcm: protect BE dailink state changes
 in trigger



On 8/26/21 1:30 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown,,, <broonie@...nel.org>
> 
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 11:40:53 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> When more than one FE is connected to a BE, e.g. in a mixing use case,
>> the BE can be triggered multiple times when the FE are opened/started
>> concurrently. This race condition is problematic in the case of
>> SoundWire BE dailinks, and this is not desirable in a general
>> case. The code carefully checks when the BE can be stopped or
>> hw_free'ed, but the trigger code does not use any mutual exclusion.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> [1/2] ASoC: soc-pcm: protect BE dailink state changes in trigger
>       commit: 0c75fc7193387776c10f7c7b440d93496e3d5e21
> [2/2] ASoC: soc-pcm: test refcount before triggering
>       commit: 6479f7588651cbc9c91e61c20ff39119cbc8feba

Ah sorry, there were still some issues in this RFC, we did more testing
and came up with a lot of improvements. The intent of the RFC status was
also to make sure it wasn't applied before the merge window.

Can this be reverted in your branch Mark?