linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: ufs: core: Make use of guard(spinlock

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:
 <DM6PR04MB65751C70ACA41329FF0BC378FC0F2@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:39:58 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "Martin K . Petersen"
	<martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: ufs: core: Make use of guard(spinlock_irqsave)

> Something I have brought up before: what does the host lock protect in the UFS
> driver? Rather than reworking the code that acquires and releases the host lock,
> all uses of the host lock should be eliminated from the UFS driver. The host lock
> should be replaced with new locks of which it is clearly documented what
> member variables these new locks protect.
Then either this series is pre-mature and needs to be dropped for now,
Or the changes you are planning can take place regardless?

Thanks,
Avri
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.