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  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:	Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:50:10 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	tiwai@...e.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com, teg@...m.no,
	rmilasan@...e.com, werner@...e.com, oleg@...hat.com, hare@...e.com,
	bpoirier@...e.de, santosh@...lsio.com, pmladek@...e.cz,
	dbueso@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option
	for built-in and modules

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear
> > > synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls.
> > > Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too?
> > 
> > This seems to be addressing if what I meant by prepared, "ready", so let
> > me address this as I do think its important.
> > 
> > By async calls do you mean users of async_schedule()? I see it
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > also uses system_unbound_wq as well but I do not see anyone calling
> > flush_workqueue(system_unbound_wq) on the kernel. We do use
> > async_synchronize_full() on kernel_init() but that just waits.
> 
> But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> async_synchronize_full().

On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
for new userspace. Do you?

> ...
> > bus.enable_kern_async=1 would still also serve as a helper for the driver core
> > to figure out if it should use async probe then on modules if prefer_async_probe
> > was enabled. Let me know if you figure out a way to avoid it.
> 
> Why do we need the choice at all?  It always should, no?

I'm OK to live with that, in that case I see no point to bus.enable_kern_async=1
at all.

  Luis
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists