linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <5396AC5C.2080108@samsung.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:57:32 +0200
From:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Ben Dooks <ben@...nity.fluff.org>
Cc:	driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	"spear-devel@...t.st.com" <spear-devel@...t.st.com>,
	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com" 
	<patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "m@...s.ch" <m@...s.ch>,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void

On 06/09/2014 03:43 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Andrzej Hajda
> ...
>>> You can't error out on module unload, although that's not really relevant
>>> here. gpiochip_remove() is typically called when the device that registered
>>> the GPIO chip is unbound. And despite some remove() callbacks having a
>>> return type of int you can not abort the removal of a device.
>>
>> It is a design flaw in many subsystems having providers and consumers,
>> not only GPIO. The same situation is with clock providers, regulators,
>> phys, drm_panels, ..., at least it was such last time I have tested it.
>>
>> The problem is that many frameworks assumes that lifetime of provider is
>> always bigger than lifetime of its consumers, and this is wrong
>> assumption - usually it is not possible to prevent unbinding driver from
>> device, so if the device is a provider there is no way to inform
>> consumers about his removal.
>>
>> Some solution for such problems is to use some kind of availability
>> callbacks for requesting resources (gpios, clocks, regulators,...)
>> instead of simple 'getters' (clk_get, gpiod_get). Callbacks should
>> guarantee that the resource is always valid between callback reporting
>> its availability and callback reporting its removal. Such approach seems
>> to be complicated at the first sight but it should allow to make the
>> code safe and as a bonus it will allow to avoid deferred probing.
>> Btw I have send already RFC for such framework [1].
> 
> Callbacks for delete are generally a locking nightmare.
> A two-way handshake is also usually needed to avoid problems
> with concurrent disconnect requests.

The framework I have proposed is lock-less[1] and concurrent requests
are serialized so both objections are invalid.

[1]: in fact the framework uses spinlock, but only to protect internal
list simple operations, and even this could be converted to fully
lock-less implementation.

Andrzej

> 
> 	David
> 

--
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/