[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160818.230055.1587442048794416891.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com
Cc: andrianov@...ras.ru, mugunthanvnm@...com, a@...table.cc,
felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com, fw@...len.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smc91c92_cs : add a spinlock to avoid race condition
From: Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:11:32 +0530
>
>
> On Friday 19 August 2016 09:37 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Pavel Andrianov <andrianov@...ras.ru>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:39:06 +0300
>>
>>> smc_reset may be executed in parallel with timer function media_check.
>>> To avoid data race in smc_set_xcvr a spinlock was added.
>>>
>>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Andrianov <andrianov@...ras.ru>
>>
>> This is not sufficient.
>>
>> You have to block basically the entire function, because both
>> smc_reset and media_check program the bank selection so could
>> corrupt eachother's register accesses.
>
> Hmm, but then there is a use of udelay as well. Would it be still
> fine to acquire a spinlock on whole function?
I don't know, but what I'm telling you is that you have to execute
register programming these two functions do atomically so that the
bank selection doesn't check get changed midstream.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists