linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers/base: export lock_device_hotplug/unlock_device

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

Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:02:39 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        sthemmin@...rosoft.com, Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, osalvador@...e.de,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers/base: export
 lock_device_hotplug/unlock_device_hotplug

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 01:56:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> E.g. When adding the memory block devices, we know that there won't be a
> driver to attach to (as there are no drivers for the "memory" subsystem)
> - the bus_probe_device() function that takes the device_lock() could
> pretty much be avoided for that case. But burying such special cases
> down in core driver code definitely won't make locking related to memory
> hotplug easier.

You don't have to have a driver for a device if you don't want to, or
you can just have a default one for all memory devices if you somehow
need it.  No reason to not do this if it makes things easier for you.

thanks,

greg k-h