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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <078dd369-1365-24fd-5b13-92e2b71fca85@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:32:18 +0530
From:   "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.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

On 21/02/23 21:35, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> +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?
 No. There won't be a new command which will change response fields.
We are using lock to prevent peripheral registers read/writes during
sending ping command.

This implementation is used to send ping command and read and process
peripheral status when PREQ is asserted and this function is also invoked
after peripheral enumeration sequence is completed to collect updated
peripheral status.
> In other words, should the last amd_sdw_process_ping_status() function
> be protected as well?
IMO, it's not needed.
>> +}