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, 15 Oct 2021 12:08:48 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <>
To:     Takashi Iwai <>
        Kuninori Morimoto <>,
        open list <>,
        Sameer Pujar <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Takashi Iwai <>,,, Gyeongtaek Lee <>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with
 that of the FE

>> I have not been able to figure out when you need
>> a) the pcm_mutex only
>> b) the fe stream lock only
>> c) both pcm_mutex and fe stream lock
> The pcm_mutex is needed for every sleepable function that treat DPCM
> FE link, but the mutex is taken only at the upper level, i.e. the
> top-most caller like PCM ops FE itself or the DAPM calls.
> That said, pcm_mutex is the top-most protection of BE links in FE.
> But, there is a code path where a mutex can't be used, and that's the
> FE and BE trigger.  For protecting against this, the FE stream lock is
> taken only at the placing both adding and deleting a BE *in addition*.
> At those places, both pcm_mutex and FE stream lock are taken.
> BE stream lock is taken in addition below the above mutex and FE
> locks.

Thanks Takashi, now I get the idea. Makes sense indeed. I'll make sure
to add this explanation to the commit message/cover so that it's not lost.

I added your three patches to my tests, so far so good, code is that

Thanks and have a nice week-end.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists