linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 86/86] libata: add private driver field to struct ata

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:	Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:37:41 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 86/86] libata: add private driver field to struct ata_device

On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:04:40 am Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 11/25/2009 12:12 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@...il.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] libata: add private driver field to struct ata_device
> >
> > This brings struct ata_device in-line with struct ata_{port,host}.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/libata.h |    1 +
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > Index: b/include/linux/libata.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/include/linux/libata.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
> > @@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ struct ata_device {
> >   	unsigned int		horkage;	/* List of broken features */
> >   	unsigned long		flags;		/* ATA_DFLAG_xxx */
> >   	struct scsi_device	*sdev;		/* attached SCSI device */
> > +	void			*private_data;
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_ATA_ACPI
> >   	acpi_handle		acpi_handle;
> >   	union acpi_object	*gtf_cache;
> 
> I'm fine with this, and would like to merge this sooner rather than later.
> 
> However, BIG FAT WARNING:  you must take special care to be sure you 
> don't leak as devices appear and disappear, etc.  IOW, watch your object 
> lifetimes carefully.  Object lifetime was the reason this was not added 
> until now.

It should be fine for now as the only user is pata_ep93xx and it gets it
right.  Though it would definitely be nice to see the underlying issue
(which is the lack of dynamic allocation for struct ata_device objects)
fixed one day in libata.

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
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/