linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare

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:	Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:08:53 -0700
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Vasilis Liaskovitis <vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, lenb@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device
 operation

> > > > > > > So the question is, does the ACPI core have to do that and if so, then why?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The problem is that acpi_memory_devcie_remove() can fail.  However,
> > > > > > device_release_driver() is a void function, so it cannot report its
> > > > > > error.  Here are function flows for SCI, sysfs eject and unbind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then don't ever let acpi_memory_device_remove() fail.  If the user wants
> > > > > it gone, it needs to go away.  Just like any other device in the system
> > > > > that can go away at any point in time, you can't "fail" that.
> > > > 
> > > > That would be ideal, but we cannot delete a memory device that contains
> > > > kernel memory.  I am curious, how do you deal with a USB device that is
> > > > being mounted in this case?
> > > 
> > > As the device is physically gone now, we deal with it and clean up
> > > properly.
> > > 
> > > And that's the point here, what happens if the memory really is gone?
> > > You will still have to handle it now being removed, you can't "fail" a
> > > physical removal of a device.
> > > 
> > > If you remove a memory device that has kernel memory on it, well, you
> > > better be able to somehow remap it before the kernel needs it :)
> > 
> > :)
> > 
> > Well, we are not trying to support surprise removal here.  All three
> > use-cases (SCI, eject, and unbind) are for graceful removal.  Therefore
> > they should fail if the removal operation cannot complete in graceful
> > way.
> 
> Then handle that in the ACPI bus code, it isn't anything that the driver
> core should care about, right?

Unfortunately not.  Please take a look at the function flow for the
unbind case in my first email.  This request directly goes to
driver_unbind(), which is a driver core function.

> And odds are, eventually you will have to handle surprise removal, it's
> only a matter of time :)

Hardware guys will have hard time to support it before software guys can
do something here...  Staff like cache coherency is a devil.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/