linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/7] ata: libata-sata: Factor out NCQ Priority configuration helpers

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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:37:01 +0100
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
Cc: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@...gle.com>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
	Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>,
	Artur Paszkiewicz <artur.paszkiewicz@...el.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	TJ Adams <tadamsjr@...gle.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/7] ata: libata-sata: Factor out NCQ Priority
 configuration helpers

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 03:17:43PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2024/03/08 19:03, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, like you said, as you are now creating helper functions:
> > ata_ncq_prio_supported(), ata_ncq_prio_enabled(), ata_ncq_prio_enable()
> > these function might no longer only be called from sysfs code,
> > so it is probably a bad idea to let these functions use spin_lock_irq().
> > 
> > However, can't ata_ncq_prio_supported() and ata_ncq_prio_enabled()
> > still use a simple spin_lock(), why would they need to disable irqs?
> > 
> > Damien, you are the author of ata_ncq_prio_supported_show(), thoughts?
> 
> See above. The spin lock irq-disabling variant is needed because the port lock
> is taken from command completion context.

Yes of course, I don't know what I was thinking...