linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu

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:   Wed, 6 Sep 2023 15:59:33 -0500
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if
 still busy

Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2023-09-06 13:46:26)
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 03:22:43PM -0500, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2023-09-06 13:13:27)
> > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:09:43AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > @@ -450,6 +468,12 @@ int intel_scu_ipc_dev_simple_command(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu, int cmd,
> > > >               return -ENODEV;
> > > >       }
> > >
> > > >       scu = ipcdev;
> > >
> > > Side observation: Isn't this a bug? We should not override the supplied parameter.
> >
> > If it is a bug that would be great to know. I wanted to make an API that
> > got the scu if it wasn't busy but then I ran across this code that
> > replaced the scu with ipcdev.
>
> To me this seems like a bug, because in other similar code we don't do that.
> And even reading this one, why do we have a parameter if it's always being
> rewritten?

Yes. From what I can tell looking at commit f57fa18583f5 ("platform/x86:
intel_scu_ipc: Introduce new SCU IPC API") it was an unintentional bug
to leave that line there.