linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks

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, 23 Apr 2014 10:23:46 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for
 device online store callbacks

Hello, Rafael.

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:21:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Can you please elaborate a bit?

Because it can get involved in larger locking dependency issues by
joining dependency graphs of two otherwise largely disjoint
subsystems.  It has potential to create possible deadlocks which don't
need to exist.

> It is there to protect hotplug operations involving multiple devices
> (in different subsystems) from racing with each other.  Why exactly
> is it bad?

But why would different subsystems, say cpu and memory, use the same
lock?  Wouldn't those subsystems already have proper locking inside
their own subsystems?  Why add this additional global lock across
multiple subsystems?

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/