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:	Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:39:13 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <>
CC:	Kalle Valo <>,
	Michal Kazior <>,
	Ben Greear <>,
	Chun-Yeow Yeoh <>,
	Yanbo Li <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up

On 12/30/2014 09:28 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

>>> wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negative values so the tests
>>> for <= 0 are not needed and the case differentiation in the error handling
>>> path unnecessary.

>>     I decided to verify your statement and I saw that it seems wrong.
>> do_wait_for_common() can return -ERESTARTSYS and the return value gets
>> returned by its callers unchanged.

> the -ERESTARTSYS only can be returned if state matches but
> wait_for_completion_timemout passes TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> so signal_pending_state will return 0 and never negativ

> my understanding of the callchain is:
> wait_for_completion_timemout with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
>    -> wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>      -> __wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>        -> do_wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>          -> signal_pending_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE...)

> static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> {
>          if (!(state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_WAKEKILL)))
>                  return 0;

    Right. I didn't look into TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE thing before sending my mail.

> so wait_for_completion_timemout should return 0 or 1 only

    0 or the remaining time, to be precise.

>>> patch was only compile tested x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m

>>> patch is against linux-next 3.19.0-rc1 -next-20141226

>>     Rather patches. It would have been better to send one patch instead of
>> 4 patches with the same name.

> sorry for that - I had split it into separate patches as it was
> in different files - giving them the same name of course was a bit
> brain-dead.

    You should have mentioned the modified files in the subject. But IMHO it 
would be better to have just one patch.

> please do give it one more look - if the above argument is invalid
> I apologize for the noise.

    It's me who should apologize. :-<

> thx!
> hofrat

WBR, Sergei

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists