linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown() callbacks

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: <20250405142832.491151-1-ryotkkr98@gmail.com>
Date: Sat,  5 Apr 2025 23:28:32 +0900
From: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: alex@...ti.fr,
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
	bigeasy@...utronix.de,
	conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
	jirislaby@...nel.org,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	palmer@...belt.com,
	paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
	pmladek@...e.com,
	ryotkkr98@...il.com,
	samuel.holland@...ive.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown() callbacks

Hi Greg,

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 14:40:33 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 10:24:58PM +0900, Ryo Takakura wrote:
>> startup()/shutdown() callbacks access SIFIVE_SERIAL_IE_OFFS.
>> The register is also accessed from write() callback.
>> 
>> If console were printing and startup()/shutdown() callback
>> gets called, its access to the register could be overwritten.
>> 
>> Add port->lock to startup()/shutdown() callbacks to make sure
>> their access to SIFIVE_SERIAL_IE_OFFS is synchronized against
>> write() callback.
>> 
>> Fixes: 45c054d0815b ("tty: serial: add driver for the SiFive UART")
>> Signed-off-by: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> ---
>> 
>> This patch used be part of a series for converting sifive driver to
>> nbcon[0]. It's now sent seperatly as the rest of the series does not
>> need be applied to the stable branch.
>
>That means this is a v2 patch, and you should also send the other patch
>as a v2 as well, right?

Oh yes. I wasn't sure about the versioning for this patch. Let me resend
this patch as v2.
Also for the other patch, as now its sent as a single standalone patch,
I'll resend it as v2.

>thanks,
>
>greg k-h