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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:54:41 +0530
From:   Sameer Pujar <>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <>,
CC:     <>, <>, <>,
        Gyeongtaek Lee <>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <>,
        Takashi Iwai <>,
        open list <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with
 that of the FE

On 10/13/2021 8:00 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> Since the flow for DPCM is based on taking a lock for the FE first, we
> need to make sure during the connection between a BE and an FE that
> they both use the same 'atomicity', otherwise we may sleep in atomic
> context.
> If the FE is nonatomic, this patch forces the BE to be nonatomic as
> well. That should have no negative impact since the BE 'inherits' the
> FE properties.
> However, if the FE is atomic and the BE is not, then the configuration
> is flagged as invalid.

In normal PCM, atomicity seems to apply only for trigger(). Other 
callbacks like prepare, hw_params are executed in non-atomic context. So 
when 'nonatomic' flag is false, still it is possible to sleep in a 
prepare or hw_param callback and this is true for FE as well. So I am 
not sure if atomicity is applicable as a whole even for FE.

At this point it does not cause serious problems, but with subsequent 
patches (especially when patch 7/13 is picked) I see failures. Please 
refer to patch 7/13 thread for more details.

I am wondering if it is possible to only use locks internally for DPCM 
state management and decouple BE callbacks from this, like normal PCMs do?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists