linux-kernel - Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk

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: <20110201152203.GE1147@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:22:03 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:18PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:05:56PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > > 2011/2/1 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
> > > 
> > > .....
> > > 
> > > > Do you plan to handle the case that clk_enable is called while prepare
> > > > isn't completed (considering the special case "not called at all")?
> > > > Maybe BUG_ON(clk->ops->prepare && !clk->prepare_count)?
> > > Sounds better than the second option.
> > > 
> > > > Alternatively don't force the sleep in clk_prepare (e.g. by protecting
> > > > prepare_count by a spinlock (probably enable_lock)) and call clk_prepare
> > > > before calling clk->ops->enable?
> > > That might result in a driver working on some platforms(those have
> > > atomic clk_prepare)
> > > and not on others(those have sleeping).
> > The first option has the same result.  E.g. on some platforms
> > clk->ops->prepare might be NULL, on others it's not.
> 
> If clk->ops->prepare is NULL, then clk_prepare() better return success
> as it should mean "no preparation necessary", not "someone didn't
> implement it so its an error".
> 
> Calling clk->ops->enable() with a spinlock held will ensure that no one
> tries to make that method sleep, so if people want sleeping stuff they
> have to use the clk_prepare() stuff.  It's a self-enforcing API which
> ensures that we don't get sleeping stuff inside clk_enable().
> 
> And with a check in clk_enable() for a preparation, it helps to ensure
> that drivers do call clk_prepare() before clk_enable() - though it can't
> guarantee it in every case.
Full ack.  (I wonder if you misunderstood me or wanted to put my
statement into more words.  Jassi didn't like that a clk_enable without
a previous clk_prepare worked on some platforms and on others it
doesn't.  With BUG_ON(clk->ops->prepare && !clk->prepare_count) in
clk_enable we have exactly this situation.)

Best regards
Uwe


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/