linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/12] On-demand device registration

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:15:34 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Stéphane Marchesin 
	<marcheu@...omium.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] On-demand device registration

Am 24.04.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso:
> Hi,
> 
> while reading the thread [0] that Alexander Holler started with his series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are referenced by other devices.
> 
> This basically reuses the information that is already embedded in the probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or adding information to DTBs.
> 
> The main issue I see is that the registration code path in some subsystems may not be reentrant, so some refactoring of the locking will be needed. In my testing I have found this problem with regulators, as the supply of a regulator might end up being registered during the registration of the first one.
> 
> Something I'm not completely happy with is that I have had to move the population of the device tree after all platform drivers have been registered. Otherwise I don't see how I could register drivers on demand as we don't have yet each driver's compatible strings.
> 
> I have done my testing on a Tegra124-based Chromebook, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred probes.

First you have to solve a problem which is totally unrelated to DT or
ACPI or x86 or ARM:

I think as long as drivers don't register themself whithout any side
effect, this problem isn't solvable. In order to make an ordered list of
drivers to start, you need to know which drivers are actually available.

And also drivers are registering themself with their initcall, they
might do an awfull lot of stuff besides just registering themself. That
means several drivers already have prerequisites and dependcies for
their initcall. That means you can't just call their initcall to get and
idea of which driver an initcall is even part of.

That ends up with the fact that you just don't have a list of drivers
you can sort, based on whatever algorithm you might have in mind.

I've tried to solve that problem with marking drivers which don't have
any prerequisits (and side effects) as "well done".

The patch which did that was 5/9 in my series, this one:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/12/414

Unfortunately nobody seemed really interested and without one of the few
"big guys" in your pocket, it's absolutely impossible to get such
changes into the kernel.

Not to speak about all the unavoidable discussions about absolutely
silly things.

But maybe I'm the problem here. No idea. I wish you more luck than I had
in the past two or three years.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
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/