netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: ipa: only clear hardware state if setup has completed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201009124136.337093ab@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:41:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, evgreen@...omium.org, subashab@...eaurora.org,
        cpratapa@...eaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        mka@...omium.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: ipa: only clear hardware state if setup
 has completed

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:39:45 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
> > The only call site already checks setup_complete, so this is not needed,
> > no?  
> 
> Wow, you are correct.
> 
> I was mainly focused on the fact that the ipa_modem_crashed()
> call could happen asynchronously, and that it called
> ipa_table_reset() which requires IPA immediate commands.
> I should have followed it back to its callers.
> 
> I agree with you, this is not needed.  The other patch
> is definitely needed though.
> 
> Would you like me to re-post that single patch, or is
> it acceptable as-is?

Please repost, thank you!