linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] thunderbolt: do not double dequeue a request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <qdbqm52rasvncb7db5ok5qfep7bfkxq34veihhrd2xdodozdbl@wltsov2h5fcz>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:02:03 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>, Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>, 
	Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>, Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>, 
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] thunderbolt: do not double dequeue a request

On (25/03/27 16:55), Mika Westerberg wrote:
[..]
> > Yes, if it's scheduled.  If it's already executed then we can schedule
> > again.
> > 
> > 	tb_cfg_request_sync() {
> > 	 tb_cfg_request()
> > 	   schedule_work()
> 
> This point it runs tb_cfg_request_work() which then calls the callback
> (tb_cfg_request_complete()) before it dequeues so "done" is completed.
> 
> > 	                        executes tb_cfg_request_dequeue
> 
> > 	 wait_for_completion_timeout()
> 
> so this will return > 0 as "done" completed..
> 
> > 	   schedule_work()
> > 	                        executes tb_cfg_request_dequeue again
> 
> ..and we don't call this one.

Ah, okay, I see.  Thanks for the explanations.  I'll drop
that one from the commit message then (let me re-spin v3,
just for the history).

[..]
> > Let me see what I can do (we don't normally apply patches that
> > were not in the corresponding subsystem tree).
> > 
> > In the meantime, do you have a subsystem/driver tree that is exposed
> > to linux-next?  If so, would be cool if you can pick up the patch so
> > that it can get some extra testing via linux-next.
> 
> Yes I do, see [1] but it does not work like that. First you should make
> sure you patch works by testing it yourself and then we can pick it up for
> others to test.

Sure, if I had the H/W testing would have done by now.  OK, let me try
to work this out.