linux-kernel - Re: 3.2.0-07927-gc49c41a: s2ram: Device 'machinecheck1' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must be fixed

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]

Message-Id: <201201162308.49530.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:08:49 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 3.2.0-07927-gc49c41a: s2ram: Device 'machinecheck1' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must be fixed

On Monday, January 16, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, January 16, 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 
> > > Just to re-instate, an end-user need not really worry about this warning
> > > too much since this was there before (at a different place, and hidden)
> > > when things were working fine... Hence it would be worthwhile to fix
> > > this warning "correctly" if possible, than just do a quick and dirty
> > > "silence the warning" kind of workaround. 
> > 
> > Well, since there's nothing to release in there, I really see only two
> > possible "fixes": either silence the warning the way you describe, or
> > remove it from the core.
> 
> No, the right fix is to release something.  The device structures
> should be allocated dynamically, not statically.  Greg's suggestion of
> using a set of per-cpu pointers to dynamically-allocated structures
> sounds right.

OK, so the source of the problem is that the device structure is statically
allocated, right?

Rafael
--
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/