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: <aSeTsINKklqqJyIs@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:56:32 -0800
From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
CC: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>, 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>, 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

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:56:57PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> 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(..))
> 

IIRC the above statement can compile out. So the patch looks correct to me.

Matt

> 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
> >