linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect _

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: <CACRpkdZ_092Gd62ef1bvp=c5WX3LXTB6W5ZrA260V1Q4Hi3UGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:32:13 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
>> > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
>> > remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
>> > platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind
>> > attributes.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
>>
>> I prefer to have this fixed by setting
>> .suppress_bind_attrs = true
>> in the struct device_driver .drv portion of the device driver,
>> so the driver cannot be removed from sysfs.
>>
>> So platform_driver_probe() isn't really the only exception,
>> there is a way to do the same supression on ordinary drivers
>> if we know we won't fiddle with them from sysfs.
>
> Yes, you are right, setting suppress_bind_attrs will work too.
>
>>
>> Can you make a patch as per above (alternatively tell me
>> how wrong I am...)
>
> Unfortunately I won't be able to do that as I can't provide
> justification for such change (i.e. I do not know why you want to
> disable unbinding while still keeping the remove() implementation.

You are right, I want a patch deleting the remove() implementation
and setting the .suppress_bind_attrs = true at the same time.

For a bool driver of this type (typically compiled in and probed
at boot) that makes most sense to me.

Well I guess there are a ton of drivers that should be done like
that ... just wanna start somewhere.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/