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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:42:39 +0100 From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at> To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, Chun-Yeow Yeoh <yeohchunyeow@...il.com>, Yanbo Li <yanbol@....qualcomm.com>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > 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. > yup - thanks for the confirmation! >>>> patch was only compile tested x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m >>>> CONFIG_ATH10K=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. > resent as a single patch as v2 thx! hofrat -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists