linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] staging: vt6655: remove unnecessary volatile qualifier

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: <Yx2NY0RBWLqH3rDK@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2022 09:25:23 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>
Cc:     forest@...ttletooquiet.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] staging: vt6655: remove unnecessary volatile
 qualifier

On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:12:44AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:03 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 02:17:55PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > > Remove volatile qualifier for the member rd0 of struct vnt_rx_desc,
> > > because there is no reason it must be volatile.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h b/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h
> > > index 17a40c53b8ff..3f0f287b1693 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h
> > > @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ struct vnt_rdes1 {
> > >
> > >  /* Rx descriptor*/
> > >  struct vnt_rx_desc {
> > > -     volatile struct vnt_rdes0 rd0;
> > > +     struct vnt_rdes0 rd0;
> >
> > You can not just remove this without describing _WHY_ it is ok to do so.
> >
> > Have you properly determined why it is, or is not, ok to use volatile
> > here?
> 
> I did not carefully look at the volatile usage here. After looking at it
> again, using volatile is actually valid: the structure resides on coherent
> memory.

Are you sure?  That's a very odd thing for a driver to need.  Looks like
they are allocating some dma memory and then pointing structures on top
of that memory.  Why would you need to have "volatile" markings on a
structure definition for that?

Dig into this some more please, I don't think this is correct.

thanks,

greg k-h