On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:17:11AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Johan Hovold wrote:
>
> > The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> > whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
> > ("USB: ldusb bugfix").
> >
> > The lock did n
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Johan Hovold wrote:
> The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
> ("USB: ldusb bugfix").
>
> The lock did not cover the loads from the ring-buffer entry after
> determining the buff
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:56:27AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> > > whatsoever, but a sp
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> > whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
> > ("USB: ldusb bugfix"
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
> ("USB: ldusb bugfix").
>
> The lock did not cover the loads from the ring-buffer entry after
>
The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
("USB: ldusb bugfix").
The lock did not cover the loads from the ring-buffer entry after
determining the buffer was non-empty, nor the update of the tail index
onc
6 matches
Mail list logo