linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] New kobject/kset/ktype documentation and example code

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:12:38 +0100
From:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] New kobject/kset/ktype documentation and example code

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:48 +0100,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 16:48 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:02 +0100,
> > Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 12:45 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:02:52 -0800, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > The uevent function will be called when the uevent is about to be sent to
> > > > > userspace to allow more environment variables to be added to the uevent.
> > > > 
> > > > It may be helpful to mention which uevents are by default created by
> > > > the kobject core (KOBJ_ADD, KOBJ_DEL, KOBJ_MOVE).
> > > 
> > > I think, we should remove all these default events from the kobject
> > > core. We will not be able to manage the timing issues and "raw" kobject
> > > users should request the events on their own, when they are finished
> > > adding stuff to the kobject. I see currently no way to solve the
> > > "attributes created after the event" problem. The new
> > > *_create_and_register functions do not allow default attributes to be
> > > created, which will just lead to serious trouble when someone wants to
> > > use udev to set defaults and such things. We may just want to require an
> > > explicit call to send the event?
> > 
> > There will always be attributes that will show up later (for example,
> > after a device is activated). Probably the best approach is to keep the
> > default uevents, but have the attribute-adder send another uevent when
> > they are done?
> 
> Uh, that's more an exception where we can't give guarantees because of
> very specific hardware setups, and it would be an additional "change"
> event. There are valid cases for this, but only a _very_ few.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason not to do it right with the "add" event,
> just because we are too lazy to solve it proper the current code. It's
> just so broken by design, what we are doing today. :)

I'm worrying a bit about changes that impact the whole code tree in
lots of places. I'd be fine with the device layer doing its uevent
manually in device_add() at the very end, though. (This would allow
drivers to add attributes in their probe function before the uevent,
for example.)
-
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/