linux-kernel - Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v4] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from IDR to XArray

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: <YS+ORkbD9NuEOl0D@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:29:26 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v4] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from
 IDR to XArray

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:56:20PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> Anyway I tried to reason about it. I perfectly know what is required to 
> protect critical sections of code, but I don't know how drivers work; I mean 
> I don't know whether or not different threads that run concurrently could 
> really interfere in that specific section. This is because I simply reason in 
> terms of general rules of protection of critical section but I really don't 
> know how Greybus works or (more in general) how drivers work.

>From a quick look, it is indeed possible to get rid of the mutex.
If this were a high-performance path which needed to have many threads
simultaneously looking up the gb_tty, or it were core kernel code, I
would say that you should use kfree_rcu() to free gb_tty and then
you could replace the mutex_lock() on lookup with a rcu_read_lock().

Since this is low-performance and driver code, I think you're better off
simply doing this:

	xa_lock((&tty_minors);
	gb_tty = xa_load(&tty_minors, minor);
	... establish a refcount ...
	xa_unlock(&tty_minors);

EXCEPT ...

establishing a refcount currently involves taking a mutex.  So you can't
do that.  First, you have to convert the gb_tty mutex to a spinlock
(which looks fine to me), and then you can do this.  But this is where
you need to work with the driver authors to make sure it's OK.