linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] clk: Don't hold prepare_lock when calling kref

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: <98005e3174d43b96e774458b37fd515f.sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 19:35:59 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] clk: Don't hold prepare_lock when calling kref_put()

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2024-03-25 11:41:56)
> We don't need to hold the prepare_lock when dropping a ref on a struct
> clk_core. The release function is only freeing memory and any code with
> a pointer reference has already unlinked anything pointing to the
> clk_core. This reduces the holding area of the prepare_lock a bit.
> 
> Note that we also don't call free_clk() with the prepare_lock held.
> There isn't any reason to do that.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> ---

Applied to clk-fixes