linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: avoid double validation in __spi

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: <170628959040.45943.13524848368852382338.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: avoid double validation in __spi_sync()

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:47:31 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> The __spi_sync() function calls __spi_validate() early in the function.
> Later, it can call spi_async_locked() which calls __spi_validate()
> again. __spi_validate() is an expensive function, so we can improve
> performance measurably by avoiding calling it twice.
> 
> Instead of calling spi_async_locked(), we can call __spi_async() with
> the spin lock held.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: avoid double validation in __spi_sync()
      commit: 0da9a5794cfda615668eaefde811e8ef378134fe

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark