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]
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 18:52:07 +0100
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Use completions instead of
 semaphores

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:02:38PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> rtw_cmd_thread() "up(s)" a semaphore twice, first to notify callers when
> its execution is started and then to notify when it is about to end.
> 
> It makes the same semaphore go "up" twice in the same thread. This
> construct makes Smatch to warn of duplicate "up(s)".
> 
> This thread uses interruptible semaphores where instead completions are
> more suitable. For this purpose it calls an helper (_rtw_down_sema())
> that returns values that are never checked. It may lead to bugs.
> 
> To address the above-mentioned issues, use two completions variables
> instead of semaphores. Use the uninterruptible versions of
> wake_for_completion*() because the interruptible / killable versions are
> not necessary.
> 
> Tested with "ASUSTek Computer, Inc. Realtek 8188EUS [USB-N10 Nano]".
> 
> This is an RFC patch because I'm not sure that changing this code
> from using semaphores to using completions variables is actually required.
> After all, the code was working properly with semaphores and, at the same
> time, I'm not sure if the Smatch warning about duplicate "up(s)" should
> actually be addressed.
> 
> I'm waiting for Maintainers and other Reviewers to say if this patch is
> actually needed and, if so, also for suggestions about how to improve
> it. In particular I'm interested to know what they think of using the
> uninterruptible version of wait_for_completion*().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> ---
> 

Dear Fabio,

Sounds like a good approach to me, nice work. I agree with Dan's
feedback also - will wait for the final patchset then give it a test for
you :-) Apologies I've been a little on the quiet side as of late.

Regards,
Phil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists