linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/7] PM: Remove pm_parent from struct dev_pm

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0706111147160.2611-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:59:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	USB development list <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/7] PM: Remove pm_parent from struct dev_pm_info

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> 
> The pm_parent member of struct dev_pm_info (defined in include/linux/pm.h) is
> only used to check if the device's parent is in the right state while the
> device is being suspended or resumed.  However, this can be done just as well
> with the help of the parent pointer in struct device, so pm_parent can be
> removed along with some code that handles it.

> @@ -61,21 +40,26 @@ int device_pm_add(struct device * dev)
>  		 kobject_name(&dev->kobj));
>  	mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
>  	list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_active);
> -	device_pm_set_parent(dev, dev->parent);
> -	if ((error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev)))
> +	/*
> +	 * The device's parent must not be released until the device itself is
> +	 * removed from the dpm_active list.
> +	 */
> +	get_device(dev->parent);
> +	error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev);
> +	if (error)
>  		list_del(&dev->power.entry);
>  	mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
>  	return error;
>  }

The error pathway here does an unbalanced get_device on dev->parent.

Anyway, I don't think you need to do this get_device at all (or the
coresponding put in device_pm_remove).  As long as a device is
registered it retains a reference to its parent, and unregistration
always calls device_pm_remove.  The reason it was there in the first 
place was because people recognized that dev->power.pm_parent wouldn't 
be one of dev's ancestors in the device hierarchy.

Alan Stern

-
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/