| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0707241025020.3568-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Towards eliminating the freezer On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern: > > Now here's an idea which might work. Can we require every caller of > > device_add() to hold some existing device's semaphore? Normally it > > would be the semaphore of the new device's parent, but it could be a > > higher ancestor. There even could be a single "root" semaphore for > > drivers registering a top-level device with no parent. > > What prevents us from having a device addition semaphore? > Adding device is not critical to performance, is it? It would create a locking order violation. Many drivers hold a device semaphore while registering a child device, so they would acquire your new semaphore while holding a device sem. But the PM core needs to prevent registration while calling suspend() methods, so it would need to acquire the device sems while holding your new semaphore. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists