linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: core: protect access to mtd devices while in suspend

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:50:27 +0200
From:   Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: core: protect access to mtd devices while
 in suspend

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:35:26 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > > into suspend. But it's actually "mtd: rawnand: Simplify the locking" that
> > > allows it to return errors rather than locking, before that commit it would
> > > have waited for the rawnand device to resume.  
> > 
> > I don't think so, I believe it was broken in the same way but was just
> > not returning errors.
> 
> Actually I was wrong, 013e6292aaf5 ("mtd: rawnand: Simplify the
> locking") removed the blocking wait (returning -EBUSY when the device
> is suspended instead of putting the thread on a waitqueue). At that
> time, I assumed all threads would be paused when the device is
> suspended, which appeared to be incorrect. So I guess the Fixes tag
> should remain, and we might want to consider backporting a less
> invasive patch to stable releases (one touching only the raw NAND
> layer).

Thanks Miquel add Reviewed-By you on the second patch.

I'll remove the mentioning of commit ef347c0cfd61
("mtd: rawnand: gpmi: Implement exec_op") in this commit msg.

Is it possible to backport another(less invasive) patch to stable
releases? I thought only upstream commits could be backported.

/Sean