linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ACPI: Support system notify handler via .sys

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:	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:28:33 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, liuj97@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ACPI: Support system notify handler via .sys_notify

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 09:54:43 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > > By using acpi_install_notify_handler(), each driver needs to walk
> > > > > > through the entire ACPI namespace to find its associated ACPI devices
> > > > > > and call it to register one by one.  I think this is more work for
> > > > > > non-ACPI drivers than defining acpi_driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not really sure what you mean.  The drivers in question already know
> > > > > what the relevant ACPI device nodes are (because they need them anyway
> > > > > for other purposes), so they don't need to look for them specifically and
> > > > > acpi_install_notify_handler() doesn't do any namespace walking.  So what
> > > > > you said above simply doesn't make sense from this viewpoint.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, if drivers already know the relevant ACPI devices, then walking the
> > > > ACPI namespace is not necessary.  I was referring the case like
> > > > processor_driver.c, acpi_memhotplug.c, and container.c in my statement. 
> > > 
> > > BTW, when an ACPI device is marked as non-present, which is the case
> > > before hot-add, we do not create an acpi_device object and therefore do
> > > not bind it with a driver.  This is why these drivers walk the ACPI
> > > namespace and install their notify handlers regardless of device status.
> > 
> > So maybe we should create struct acpi_device objects in that case too?
> 
> I think it has some challenge as well.  We bind an ACPI driver with
> device_register(), which calls device_add()-> kobject_add().  So, all
> non-present ACPI device objects will show up in sysfs, unless we can
> change the core.  This will change user interface.  There can be quite
> many non-present devices in ACPI namespace depending on FW
> implementation.

If additional devices appear in sysfs, that's not a problem.  If there
were fewer of them, that would be a real one. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/