linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 0/3] driver-core: add asynch module loading support

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: <20140831193140.GA12678@kroah.com>
Date:	Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:31:40 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>, falcon@...zu.com,
	tiwai@...e.de, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, joseph.salisbury@...onical.com,
	bpoirier@...e.de, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/3] driver-core: add asynch module loading support

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:24:46PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>before we added the current async approach the approach of async init calls was tried
> >>At the time, Linus hated it and he was right, it was not the right thing.
> >>
> >>What is different this time to make this the right thing to do ?
> >
> >Because otherwise drivers still have to do this, but open code it. Let's say I
> >have a long operations (i.e. for some touchpads it takes about 2 secs to reset
> >and configure it). I can offload that part into async_schedule() so it does not
> >stop initialization of the rest of the system (why would I want to delay
> >initializing of USB or storage system until touchpad is ready?) but if that
> >initialization fails we end up with partially bound driver and device that is
> >not really operable. I would very much prefer async and sync cases be the same
> >- if probe() fails the driver is not bound to the device.
> >
> >I think it is wrong to make async probing system-wide, but driver opt-in shoudl
> >be fine and right thing to do.
> >
> 
> I am completely fine if we make basically an async wrapper for
> pci_register_driver() and friends.. that would be convenient I suppose.
> 
> (but then again, in reality very few drivers take real time to init... most already
> do the heavy work in open(). Not all can, sure, but if you look at a bootgraph.pl
> graph of a typical boot it's only a few that matter).
> And many drivers need to register with a subsystem, and there's some ordering around that,
> and that's why we ended up with the async cookie stuff, so that you can do the
> heavy work in parallel, but order near the end at registeration-with-the-subsystem time.
> 
> But doing this on an initcall level was wrong back then, and I have yet to hear
> a reason why it would be right this time.

It's still wrong, it's not what I was thinking about when talking this
over with Luis and Dmitry, I think something got lost in the
translation...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/