linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Driver core: add new device to bus's list before probing

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:05:44 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver core: add new device to bus's list before
 probing

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 15:27, Alan Stern<stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > This patch (as1271) affects when new devices get linked into their
> > bus's list of devices.  Currently this happens after probing, and it
> > doesn't happen at all if probing fails.  Clearly this is wrong,
> > because at that point quite a few symbolic links have already been
> > created in sysfs.  We are committed to adding the device, so it should
> > be linked into the bus's list regardless.
> >
> > In addition, this needs to happen before the uevent announcing the new
> > device gets issued.  Otherwise user programs might try to access the
> > device before it has been added to the bus.
> >
> > To fix both these problems, the patch moves the call to
> > klist_add_tail() forward from bus_attach_device() to bus_add_device().
> > Since bus_attach_device() now does nothing but probe for drivers, it
> > has been renamed to bus_probe_device().  And lastly, the kerneldoc is
> > updated.
> 
> Thanks for doing this that quickly. You are doing a really great job.
> 
> > Kay, do you want this merged into 2.6.31 or are you okay with waiting
> > for 2.6.32-rc1?  It changes a major core routine.  On the other hand,
> > the problem it fixes does affect real users.
> 
> I think it should go into -next and we wait a few days. It seems like
> the proper fix, but we should make sure, we didn't miss something.
> 
> After that, it would be nice if we can get that into 2.6.31, as we
> have several problems already, which are likely solved by this.

But as this isn't a regression (it's how things always have worked,
right?), I'm a bit leary of pushing it to .31 right now, so late in the
release cycle.  How about it goes to Linus for .32, and we backport it
to -stable if it looks ok?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/