linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc suspend regression: sysfs deadlock

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703151555240.26565@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:29:02 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>, gregkh@...e.de,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc suspend regression: sysfs deadlock

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> Personally I don't understand what was wrong with my name.  What's weird 
> or unintuitive about doing something in a different task's context?

The only thing wrong with sysfs_do_something_in_a_different_task_context()
is the length of the name.  "do", that's good, much better than "access".

sysfs_access_in_other_task() left me wondering what this "other" task
was, and what kind of "access" it's trying to get - or is the calling
task the other, and it's trying to access something it wouldn't
directly have access to?

> 
> Dmitry's suggestion is slightly inappropriate because the function doesn't
> take a workstruct as an argument and it isn't itself a workqueue callback.  

True, though since he's saying "work" rather than "workstruct",
I was okay with that: it's a sysfs wrapper to schedule_work().

> 
> Would people be happier with sysfs_schedule_callback() and
> device_schedule_callback()?  At least the functions do take a callback 
> pointer as an argument, even though they aren't callbacks themselves.

A lot happier than with sysfs_access_in_other_task() -
if you prefer this to Dmitry's, it's okay by me.

Hugh
-
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/