linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 5/8] soundwire: amd: add SoundWire manager interrupt 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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:05:48 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vijendar Mukunda <Vijendar.Mukunda@....com>, vkoul@...nel.org
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com,
        Mario.Limonciello@....com, Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com,
        Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com, Mastan.Katragadda@....com,
        Arungopal.kondaveeti@....com,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/8] soundwire: amd: add SoundWire manager interrupt
 handling


> +static void amd_sdw_read_and_process_ping_status(struct amd_sdw_manager *amd_manager)
> +{
> +	u64 response;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&amd_manager->bus.msg_lock);
> +	response = amd_sdw_send_cmd_get_resp(amd_manager, 0, 0);
> +	mutex_unlock(&amd_manager->bus.msg_lock);
> +	amd_sdw_process_ping_status(response, amd_manager);

do you have a case where a new command could be sent after the
mutex_unlock(), which could change the response fields?

In other words, should the last amd_sdw_process_ping_status() function
be protected as well?

> +}