linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sysfs: allow suicide

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: <m1iqlxt39f.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:00 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
Cc:	htejun@...il.com, greg@...ah.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sysfs: allow suicide

Alex Chiang <achiang@...com> writes:

>> Sounds like it.    I'm not trying to shoot this down, rather
>> I'm trying to figure out how to solve this cleanly, as I am slowly
>> trying to sort out the pci hotplug and unplug issues.
>
> Please do keep me informed on any progress you make or thoughts
> you have here.
>
>> I'm not certain how general we can be. pci layer, device layer or kobject
>> layer, but I think it makes sense to have a dedicated work queue to use
>> when devices are removed.  As every hotplug driver currently has to
>> invent one.  The fake hotplug code is very normal in this respect.
>> 
>> If we can get the work queue creation and the calling of remove put
>> into the generic pci layer, we should be able to simply all of the
>> hotplug controller drivers.
>
> Hm, that is a good idea.
>
> Simplifying all the various hotplug drivers is on my TODO list,
> but it's a long and tricky process. I agree though, there is no
> reason why they should all be as complicated as they are.
>
>> I'm not seeing a patch from you where you are using a separate
>> workqueue.  Am I missing something?  
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/25/489
>
> But I suspect that is not the workqueue you are looking for. ;)

Not quite.

>> But if we can place that workqueue in say the pci layer I think
>> it would be just a little re factoring and not a lot more code.
>
> The PCI layer doesn't need a workqueue to remove devices, not on
> its own behalf.
>
> You are talking about providing something for the benefit of all
> the hotplug drivers, right?

Yes.  The common case is that we discover a card needs to be or
has been removed from an interrupt handler.

Eric
--
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/