linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period

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]

Message-ID: <ZXyCMaAa3eFToICm@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:43:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, brgl@...ev.pl,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 10:38:00AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> This series contains minor improvements to gpiolib-cdev.
> 
> The banner change is relocating the debounce_period_us from gpiolib's
> struct gpio_desc to cdev's struct line.  Patch 1 stores the field
> locally in cdev.  Patch 2 removes the now unused field from gpiolib.
> 
> Patch 3 is somewhat related and removes a FIXME from
> gpio_desc_to_lineinfo().  The FIXME relates to a race condition in
> the calculation of the used flag, but I would assert that from
> the userspace perspective the read operation itself is inherently racy.
> The line being reported as unused in the info provides no guarantee -
> it just an indicator that requesting the line is likely to succeed -
> assuming the line is not otherwise requested in the meantime.
> Given the overall operation is racy, trying to stamp out an unlikely
> race within the operation is pointless. Accept it as a possibility
> that has negligible side-effects and reduce the number of locks held
> simultaneously and the duration that the gpio_lock is held.
> 
> Patches 1 and 3 introduce usage of guard() and scoped_guard() to cdev.
> Patch 4 replaces any remaining discrete lock/unlock calls around
> critical sections with guard() or scoped_guard().
> 
> Patch 5 is unrelated to debounce or info, but addresses Andy's
> recent lamentation that the linereq get/set values functions are
> confusing and under documented.
> Figured I may as well add that while I was in there.

This version LGTM, few minor comments here and there, but feel free to add

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko