linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:15:10 +0200
From:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	sboyd@...eaurora.org, lee.jones@...aro.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and
 implement hand-off

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:43:56AM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Maxime Ripard (2015-08-18 08:45:52)
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > > All of the other kitchen sink stuff (DT binding, passing the flag back
> > > to the framework when the clock consumer driver calls clk_put) was left
> > > out because I do not see a real use case for it. If one can demonstrate
> > > a real use case (and not a hypothetical one) then this patch series can
> > > be expanded further.
> > 
> > I think there is a very trivial use case for passing back the
> > reference to the framework, if during the probed, we have something
> > like:
> > 
> > clk = clk_get()
> > clk_prepare_enable(clk)
> > foo_framework_register()
> > 
> > if foo_framework_register fails, the sensible thing to do would be to
> > call clk_disable_unprepare. If the clock was a critical clock, you
> > just gated it.
> 
> Hmm, a good point. Creating the "pass the reference back" call is not
> hard technically. But how to keep from abusing it? E.g. I do not want
> that call to become an alternative to correct use of clk_enable.
> 
> Maybe I'll need a Coccinelle script or just some regular sed to
> occasionally search for new users of this api and audit them?
> 
> I was hoping to not add any new consumer api at all :-/

I don't think there's any abuse that can be done with the current API,
nor do I think you need to have new functions either.

If the clock is critical, when the customer calls
clk_unprepare_disable on it, simply take back the reference you gave
in the framework, and you're done. Or am I missing something?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)