linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/38] workqueue: add missing 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]

Message-ID: <CAOS58YO7Ot69kv=2UOTDORMAtgL2EOq-voEj3JLCDb8Rv=LABA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:34:00 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/38] workqueue: add missing put_device call

Hello,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com> wrote:
> The reason I removed the kfree() was because the put_device() will decrement
> wq_dev->dev's reference count to zero (it is set to one by device_register) and hence the
> wq_device_release() will be called. Now, this effectively does the same the kfree() call
> would have done but also driver core is notified.

Yeah, I know it does the same thing. It's just not the right way to do it.

> Also, if you take a look at the comment for the device_register() function, it explicitly
> says NOT to kfree the struct device, but instead call put_device() and let the device's release()
> function take care.

Greg, the API as described by the comment is really weird and
unconventional. Failed calls are not supposed to have side effects
which require explicit cleanup. Can we please update the comment?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/