netdev - RE: [PATCH] ks8851: Fix missing mutex

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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:56:25 -0500
From:	"Matt Renzelmann" <mjr@...wisc.edu>
To:	"'Stephen Boyd'" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, <mjr@...wisc.edu>
Cc:	<fbl@...hat.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <ben@...tec.co.uk>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ks8851: Fix missing mutex_lock/unlock


> This register is already read in the probe function and the lock is not
> held there so you seem to have missed a couple. I would guess it doesn't
> really matter tha we don't grab the lock though because the device isn't
> actively sending/receiving packets. How about this instead?
> 

The reason I didn't go that way was the request_irq call is not made until near
the end of probe.  I believe only the ks8851_rdreg16 call in the netdev_info
statement actually needs the mutex protection.  That said, the approach you
posted looks reasonable as well and may be clearer.  I'm unsure as to which way
is best.

Thanks everyone for your help,
Matt

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html