linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] usb: gadget: udc: core: Revise comments for usb_ep

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:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 12:58:02 -0700
From:   Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:     <balbi@...nel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jackp@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] usb: gadget: udc: core: Revise comments for
 usb_ep_disable()

Hi Alan,

On 10/27/2021 7:24 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 07:50:24PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
>> The usb_ep_disable() routine is being widely used directly in the
>> disconnect callback path by function drivers.  Hence, the statement
>> about it being able to only run in process context may not be true.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c | 2 --
>>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
>> index d626511..e1f90d8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
>> @@ -136,8 +136,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_ep_enable);
>>   * gadget drivers must call usb_ep_enable() again before queueing
>>   * requests to the endpoint.
>>   *
>> - * This routine must be called in process context.
>> - *
>>   * returns zero, or a negative error code.
>>   */
>>  int usb_ep_disable(struct usb_ep *ep)
> 
> You should also change the kerneldoc for usb_ep_enable.  Neither routine 
> needs to be called in process context.
> 
> In fact, it might be good to change both comments to:
> 
>  * This routine may be called in an atomic (interrupt) context.
> 
> just to be totally explicit.
> 
Ah, missed the ep enable case as well, thanks for the catch.  Sounds
good, I'll add that statement.

Thanks
Wesley Cheng