linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: configfs: programmatically create config groups

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:	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:07 +0100
From:	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@...sung.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	'Kyungmin Park' <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	'Felipe Balbi' <balbi@...com>,
	'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	'Joel Becker' <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: configfs: programmatically create config groups

> On 11/27/2012 05:23 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> How should a generic tool know what kind of actions are needed for given
>> function to be removed?  If you ask me, there should be a way to unbind
>> gadget and unload all modules without any specific knowledge of the
>> functions.  If there is no such mechanism, then it's a bad user
>> interface.

On Wed, Nov 28 2012, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Well. You need only to remove the directories you created.

My point is that there should be a way to write a script that is unaware
of the way function is configured, ie. which directories were created
and which were not.

Besides, if you rmdir lun0, is the function still supposed to work with
all LUNs present?  In my opinion, while gadget is bound, it should not
be possible to modify such things.

> An unbind would be  simply an unlink of the gadget  which is linked to
> the udc.   All configurations  remain so  you can link  it at  a later
> point without touching the configuration because it is as it was.

Yes, but that's not my concern.  My concern is that I should be able to
put a relatively simple code in my shutdown script (or whatever) which
unbinds all gadgets, without knowing what kind of functions are used.

And I'm proposing that this could be done by allowing user to just do:

	cd /cfs/...
	rmdir gadgets/*		# unbind and remove all gadgets
	rmdir functions/*/*	# unbind and remove all function instances
	rmdir functions/*	# unload all functions
	rmdir udcs/*		# unload all UDCs
        
>> I think the question is of information flow direction.  If user gives
>> some information to the kernel, she should be the one creating any
>> necessary directories.  But if the information comes from kernel to the
>> user, the kernel should create the structure.

> Yes that is a point. But the "name" can go away if we use it in the
> directory name. That is what other configfs user do. The same is true
> for luns for instance. I just want to avoid adding features because we
> do something different compared to every other configfs user.

You've lost me here.  What are we talking about again?  What “name” are
you referring to?

-- 
Best regards,                                         _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of      o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science,  Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@...gle.com>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped