linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] bus: mhi: host: Take irqsave lock after TRE is generated

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, 22 Sep 2023 08:50:09 -0600
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
To:     Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@...cinc.com>, <mani@...nel.org>
CC:     <mhi@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_cang@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_mrana@...cinc.com>, Hemant Kumar <quic_hemantk@...cinc.com>,
        "Lazarus Motha" <quic_lmotha@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] bus: mhi: host: Take irqsave lock after TRE is
 generated

On 9/13/2023 2:47 AM, Qiang Yu wrote:
> From: Hemant Kumar <quic_hemantk@...cinc.com>
> 
> Take irqsave lock after TRE is generated to avoid deadlock due to core
> getting interrupts enabled as local_bh_enable must not be called with
> irqs disabled based on upstream patch.

Where is local_bh_enable() being called?  What patch?  What is upstream 
of the codebase you submitted this to?  Why is it safe to call 
mhi_gen_tre() without the lock?