linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RESEND v4] VME Framework Fixes

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: <20110831203651.GA5339@flamenco.cs.columbia.edu>
Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:36:51 -0400
From:	"Emilio G. Cota" <cota@...ap.org>
To:	Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@...n.ch>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, martyn.welch@...com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RESEND v4] VME Framework Fixes

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:05:43 +0200, Manohar Vanga wrote:
> Hi Greg, Martyn,
> 
> I have reordered the patches to separate the bridge refcounting patch
> for now so that we can make some progress on getting the other patches
> into the tree. I will rework the refcounting patch and send it later.

(snip to 3rd patch comment)

> * staging: vme: make match() driver specific to improve non-VME64x
>     support
> 	Changes based on the moving of the bridge refcounting patch as well
> 	as changes based on comments from Emilio and Greg in the last resend.

I'm confused. AFAICT you should fix things here; as per Greg's post:

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:54:03 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:40:12PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > AFAIK currently a vme bridge driver can be freely removed with rmmod
> > even if it has devices under it. The patch avoids this by increasing
> > the refcount of the bridge module every time a device is registered
> > under it.
> >
> > What's the appropriate thing to do when rmmod tries to remove a bridge
> > module?
>
> Let it happen and remove all of the devices under it.
>
> That's the way all other bus drivers in the kernel work, why change this
> type of behavior?

When a bridge is removed, just remove the devices under it. Refcounts
in this case are not necessary; in fact refcounts where used to avoid
a bridge being removed while it had devices under it, which it turns
out was a bad idea.

		Emilio
--
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/