linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Introduce mode specific callbacks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:38:45 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Introduce mode specific callbacks

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:24:53AM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10 February 2015 at 22:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:06:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * Mode transition callback(s): Only one of the two groups should be
> >> +      * defined:
> >> +      * - set_mode(), only for modes <= CLOCK_EVT_MODE_RESUME.
> >> +      * - set_mode_{shutdown|periodic|oneshot|resume}().
> >> +      */

> >> +static int clockevents_sanity_check(struct clock_event_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> +}
> >
> > It appears to me you've not actually checked that condition outlined
> > above, a driver could set both the legacy and the new callbacks.
> 
> Exactly for this reason I mentioned this in the logs:
> 
> >> If the legacy ->set_mode() callback is provided, all mode specific
> >> callbacks would be ignored.
> 
> So, either we can mention that in the code as well OR add code to
> check and WARN about that. Will do whatever looks better to you
> guys.

I think its better to be strict; esp. with new interfaces. It avoids
confusion.

Suppose a driver writer sees these new methods and thinks to use one
while still having the set_mode() one -- ie. he didn't actually read the
comment. We'd better make sure he fails and goes back to read it.
--
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/