linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] coresight: Fix possible deadlock in coresight_panic

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: <bee2351a-f264-4e3c-9c28-5dacc3605dba@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 09:31:32 +0100
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>, Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
 Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coresight: Fix possible deadlock in coresight_panic_cb

On 16/09/2025 18:17, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:51:11PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 9/16/25 12:48, Leo Yan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:14:40PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Could you check if the drafted patch below looks good to you? If so, I
>>>>
>>>> As stated above I disagree with a half-hearted removal. If you want to do that,
>>>> then I will resend v2 done with an rcu list and you can make your own follow-up.
>>>
>>> It is fine to disagree, but please don't resend v2 :)
>>>
>>> We have plan to refactor locking in CoreSight driver, I will try my
>>> best to avoid adding new lock unless with a strong reason.
>>
>> As said above it will be done with an rcu list, so no new lock.
>>
>> Or I can do this patch but stick the notifier block in csdev as suggested by Suzuki.
> 
> I am fine for adding the notifier block in csdev.
> 
> Suzuki, could you confirm if this is the right way to move forward?

Yes, if we are planning to keep a csdev panic_ops, why not stick in the
notifier there, rather than splitting it between core code and drivers.

Suzuki




> 
> Thanks,
> Leo