Hello, Jiri, Thank you for the reply and your opinion. It appeared that my own implementation of a ring buffer was kind of "inventing a wheel", as "kfifo" is already is the kernel and it may work as a ring buffer quite well. I would like to rewrite my patchset and use kfifo instead in a new one. Please, ignore this my patchset and I'll try to submit v2 soon. This also will answer to "how was it tested" concern, as I believe, kfifo was quite tested. Best regards, Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | Product Security Engineer ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jiri Kosina" <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Vladis Dronov" <vdronov@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Benjamin Tissoires" <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 5:25:21 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] HID: debug: fix the ring buffer implementation > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Vladis Dronov wrote: > > > This patchset is fixing some aspects of the ring buffer implementation in > > drivers/hid/hid-debug.c. This implementation has certain problem points: > > > > - it may stuck in an infinite loop > > - it may return corrupted data > > - a reader and a writer are not protected by spinlocks, which can lead to > > the corrupted data > > > > The suggested patchset is a new ring buffer implementation which overwrites > > the oldest data in case of an overflow. One can verify the suggested ring > > buffer implementation by fuzzing it with modified kernel and fuzzer-reader > > at: https://gist.github.com/nefigtut/33d56e3870b67493cc867344aed2a062 > > Vladis, > > thanks for cleaning it up. I actually like your rewrite quite a lot. > > Quick question -- how well was it tested in which scenarios? > > -- > Jiri Kosina > SUSE Labs
