[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120403101623.GA16889@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:16:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on missing sysfs attribute group
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Huh, so put repeated, duplicated, inconsistently applied sanity
> >> > checks into dozens of sysfs attribute using kernel subsystems?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> No. I was not talking about every usage site.
> >
> > Note, I'm not arguing that this isn't a bug in the P4 PMU driver
> > - it is clearly a bug and I've applied the fix for it. I'm
> > arguing about the escallation vector that this bug takes - that
> > is unnecessarily disruptive:
> >
> > You were talking about:
> >
> >> >> FIX perf to include sanity checks.
> >
> > and what the PMU drivers do here is not uncommon at all, and the
> > bug (for which I applied the fix and will push to Linus ASAP) is
> > not uncommon either:
>
> > Bugs happen and indirections happen too. perf uses a generic
> > PMU driver layer where the lower level layers register
> > themselves. There's at least a dozen similar constructs in
> > the kernel and you suggest that the right solution is to put
> > checks in every one of them, while the nice patch from Bruno
> > could catch it too, in one central place?
>
> What is uncommon is that perf_pmu_register is called from an
> early initcall, and then later a device_init call is used to
> register the pmu subsystem with sysfs.
This has no relevance to the bug and crash pattern itself
whatsoever, so stop blathering about unrelated things.
Not filling out a sysfs object attribute is an *easy* driver
level mistake, I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. Not
crashing on it in the sysfs layer is an *obvious* debugging
helper, and I don't understand why you are even arguing about
this.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists