linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 16/16] staging: r8188eu: remove usb_vendor_req

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: <4434c136-6bfc-9a25-d0ba-f989c655fa69@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:47:59 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Laight <david.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 16/16] staging: r8188eu: remove usb_vendor_req_mutex

On 9/22/21 16:21, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 9/21/21 21:18, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>> From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
>> 
>> This mutex was used to protect shared buffer for USB requests. Since
>> buffer was removed in previous patch we can remove this mutex as well.
>> 
>> Furthermore, because it was used to serialize the calls to the Core USB
>> API, we thoroughly tested the enabling of concurrent firing of USB requests
>> without the mutex and found no problems of any kind in common use cases.
>> 
>> Co-developed-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
> 
> Hi, Greg!
> 
> If all is OK with previous 15 patches, please, do not take this one, it
>    causes problems with connection... :)
> 
> I don't understand what went wrong after v8, but anyway, this one should
> not be applied for now, since it's broken
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
>


Just to be clear: previous 15 patches _are_ tested and do not cause any 
misbehavior or bugs.

I guess, the stack buffer maybe the problem here, since it's the only 
change on this side since v8. I didn't have a chance to take a closer 
look, but I will do it on weekends, I hope :)



With regards,
Pavel Skripkin