linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] scsi: ufs: core: Don't perform UFS clkscale if host asyn scan in progress

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: <1989e794-6539-4875-9e87-518da0715083@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:54:40 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
 "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
 "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
 "quic_rampraka@...cinc.com" <quic_rampraka@...cinc.com>,
 "quic_cang@...cinc.com" <quic_cang@...cinc.com>,
 "quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>,
 "quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com" <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
 "quic_ziqichen@...cinc.com" <quic_ziqichen@...cinc.com>,
 "neil.armstrong@...aro.org" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 "luca.weiss@...rphone.com" <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
 "konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com" <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 "junwoo80.lee@...sung.com" <junwoo80.lee@...sung.com>,
 "mani@...nel.org" <mani@...nel.org>,
 "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
 Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南) <Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com>,
 "linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
 "manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 "James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com"
 <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] scsi: ufs: core: Don't perform UFS clkscale if host
 asyn scan in progress

On 7/25/25 2:13 AM, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
> Could consider luns_avail instead mutex?

That would be wrong. I think it is essential that scan_mutex is used in
this patch. Additionally, the lock inversion is between devfreq->lock
and (c->notifiers)->rwsem so it seems unlikely to me that Ziqi's patch
is the patch that introduced the reported lock inversion.

Bart.