linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: virtio: fix completion handling

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: <20211020104709.k6oqo2gmegiwfre4@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:17:09 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Cc:     Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>, "wsa@...nel.org" <wsa@...nel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel <kernel@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: virtio: fix completion handling

On 20-10-21, 12:38, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> I don't quite understand how that would be safe since
> virtqueue_add_sgs() can fail after a few iterations and all queued
> request buffers can have FAIL_NEXT set.  In such a case, we would end up
> waiting forever with your proposed change, wouldn't we?

Good point. I didn't think of that earlier.

I think a good simple way of handling this is counting the number of
buffers sent and received. Once they match, we are done. That
shouldn't break anything else I believe.

-- 
viresh