linux-kernel - Re: Incorrect uses of get_driver()/put

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:	Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:07:33 +0100
From:	Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect uses of get_driver()/put_driver()

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:48:15 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Maybe you want to call device_lock(&sdev->dev) here?  It will prevent
> the driver from being unbound (and therefore from being unloaded), and
> it's likely that sdrv's remove and probe routines expect to be called
> with this lock held, because that's what the device core does.  The
> drawback is that holding the lock prevents other things from happening
> as well, like unregistering sdev.
> 
> Alternatively, we can simply remove ssb_driver_get/put.

I think in practice it doesn't matter. This function is only
used in the rare case where the EEPROM on the board is written.

-- 
Greetings, Michael.
--
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/