linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the dmaengine tree with the dmaengine-fixes tree

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:   Tue, 28 Dec 2021 10:09:28 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the dmaengine tree with the
 dmaengine-fixes tree

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:53 AM <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the dmaengine tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   8affd8a4b5ce3 ("dmaengine: idxd: fix missed completion on abort path")
>
> from the dmaengine-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   5d78abb6fbc97 ("dmaengine: idxd: rework descriptor free path on failure")
>
> from the dmaengine tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> index 83452fbbb168b,569815a84e95b..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> @@@ -134,20 -120,32 +125,43 @@@ static void llist_abort_desc(struct idx
>         spin_unlock(&ie->list_lock);
>
>         if (found)
> -               complete_desc(found, IDXD_COMPLETE_ABORT);
> +               idxd_dma_complete_txd(found, IDXD_COMPLETE_ABORT, false);
>  +
>  +      /*
> -        * complete_desc() will return desc to allocator and the desc can be
> -        * acquired by a different process and the desc->list can be modified.
> -        * Delete desc from list so the list trasversing does not get corrupted
> -        * by the other process.
> ++       * completing the descriptor will return desc to allocator and
> ++       * the desc can be acquired by a different process and the
> ++       * desc->list can be modified.  Delete desc from list so the
> ++       * list trasversing does not get corrupted by the other process.

traversing

>  +       */
>  +      list_for_each_entry_safe(d, t, &flist, list) {
>  +              list_del_init(&d->list);
> -               complete_desc(d, IDXD_COMPLETE_NORMAL);
> ++              idxd_dma_complete_txd(d, IDXD_COMPLETE_NORMAL, false);

Is "false" correct here?

>  +      }
>   }

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds