linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tty v1 4/8] serial: core: lock port for start_rx() in uart_resume

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:   Fri, 26 May 2023 10:15:51 +0206
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi <quic_vnivarth@...cinc.com>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tty v1 4/8] serial: core: lock port for start_rx() in
 uart_resume_port()

On 2023-05-25, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Seems right, but shouldn't you also fix the call to stop_rx() that
>> the same commit cfab87c2c271 ("serial: core: Introduce callback for
>> start_rx and do stop_rx in suspend only if this callback
>> implementation is present.") added? That one is also missing the
>> lock, right?
>
> Ah, I see. You did that in a separate patch and I wasn't CCed. I guess
> I would have just put the two in one patch, but I don't feel that
> strongly.

Actually stop_rx() was introduced in a different commit. The commit you
reference just changed it a bit. My other patch uses a different Fixes
tag.

Also, I was concerned about packing too much new spin locking in a
single commit in the hopes it will help with any bisecting issues.

> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

Thanks!

John