linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] dma-buf: heaps: Fix mutex lock area and generalize struct dma_heap

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]

Message-ID: <59c748b5-245a-c2d0-0b9f-d412687c72ab@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:31:31 +0800
From:   Weizhao Ouyang <o451686892@...il.com>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>,
        Liam Mark <lmark@...eaurora.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
        Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
        christian.koenig@....com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dma-buf: heaps: Fix mutex lock area and generalize
 struct dma_heap_attachment

Thanks for reply.

On 2022/1/4 02:45, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:09 PM Weizhao Ouyang <o451686892@...il.com> wrote:
>> Fix cma_heap_buffer mutex lock area to protect vmap_cnt and vaddr. And
>> move struct dma_heap_attachment to dma-heap.h so that vendor dma heaps
>> can use it, the same behaviour as struct dma_buf_attachment.
>>
> Hey!
>   Thanks for submitting this patch! Apologies for the slow reply (was
> out for the holidays).
>
> This patch is combining two changes in one patch, so they need to be
> split up. The locking change looks sane, but moving the
> dma_heap_attachment may need some extra justification as changing
> upstream code just to support out of tree code isn't usually done (if
> there was some benefit to the in-tree code, that would be fine
> though).
>
> I'd also be eager to try to get the vendor heap to be merged, assuming
> we can also merge an upstream user for it.
Yeap moving the dma_heap_attachment need more sufficient reason, and
it should add a private area to adapt vendor heap change if we move it
to in-tree code. So just drop the idea now :)

I will send a new patch to clarify the locking change later.

Thanks,
Weizhao