linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] w1: Introduce a slave mutex for serializing IO.

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:	Tue, 15 May 2012 05:26:34 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] w1: Introduce a slave mutex for serializing IO.

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:43:49AM +1000, NeilBrown (neilb@...e.de) wrote:
> However lockdep didn't like it.  There are ordering problems between this
> mutex and and sysfs's s_active.
> 
> When you access battery properies via sysfs, the sysfs lock is taken first,
> then the master->mutex.
> When w1_reconnect_slaves calls through to device_del and sys_addrm_finish,
> the mutex is held while the sysfs lock is wanted.

I only came to idea of not allowing sysfs in ->probe() and instead
introduce new callback, which will initialize 'external' to w1 core
parts without holding master's mutex

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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/