linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc

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

Message-ID: <nrrk4kug6a42fztx7ryuz5bk6uy7roiszjhiivlvtrw3uvunps@wn44moyetzff>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 23:56:57 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, 
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, 
	Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, 
	Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>, 
	Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, 
	Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc_signal() return code

Hi Philipp,

in the subject /dma_fenc_signal/dma_fence_signal/

> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
>  {
>  	struct xe_hw_fence *fence, *next;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> -	int err;
>  	bool tmp;
>  
>  	if (XE_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&irq->pending))) {
> @@ -93,9 +92,9 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
>  		list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
>  			list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> -			err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);

why don't we do

XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_signal_locked(..))

instead?

Andi

> +			XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(&fence->dma));
> +			dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
>  			dma_fence_put(&fence->dma);
> -			XE_WARN_ON(err);
>  		}
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
>  		dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp);
> -- 
> 2.49.0
>