[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zyt9mf-6hNYWyNhJ@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:30:49 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Qiu-ji Chen <chenqiuji666@...il.com>
Cc: dtwlin@...il.com, elder@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] greybus/uart: Fix atomicity violation in
get_serial_info()
On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:58:19PM +0800, Qiu-ji Chen wrote:
> Our static checker found a bug where set_serial_info() uses a mutex, but
> get_serial_info() does not. Fortunately, the impact of this is relatively
> minor. It doesn't cause a crash or any other serious issues. However, if a
> race condition occurs between set_serial_info() and get_serial_info(),
> there is a chance that the data returned by get_serial_info() will be
> meaningless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qiu-ji Chen <chenqiuji666@...il.com>
> Fixes: 0aad5ad563c8 ("greybus/uart: switch to ->[sg]et_serial()")
> ---
> V2:
> Modified the patch description to make it more concise and easier to understand.
> Changed the fix code to ensure the logic is correct.
> Thanks to Johan Hovold and Dan Carpenter for helpful suggestion.
Much better, thanks.
But please try to use the same patch prefix as previous patches for the
driver you're modifying (e.g. by looking at git log --oneline for the
driver in question).
In this case it should have been:
staging: greybus: uart: fix ...
so that it's clear where this patch should be applied.
Care to fix that up in a v3?
Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists