linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

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: <3097692.FmXPBhB5oa@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:23:50 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.og>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:31:08 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> Good grief, don't you guys ever trim unwanted material from your 
> emails?  I had to erase more than 4 screens worth of useless stuff 
> before getting to the relevant portions.
> 
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> 
> > >> Also, have you considered that not only drivers request resources? For
> > >> example, the on-demand probing series would probe a device that is
> > >> needed by an initcall, simplifying synchronization.
> 
> Did Rafael ever say that only drivers could create these functional
> dependencies?  I don't recall seeing that anywhere.  Presumably any
> part of the kernel will be allowed to do it.

Right.

> > > You really need to explain what you mean here or maybe give an example.
> > 
> > There are initcalls that assume that a given resource is available.
> > Because of async probes, or because the resource's driver being built
> > as a module, or because the resource's driver gained a dependency
> > (direct or not), those initcalls break unexpectedly at times.

Well, I'm still unsure what initcalls are in question here.

> > If resource getters could probe dependencies on-demand, those
> > initcalls would be more robust to changes in other parts of the
> > codebase.
> > 
> > AFAIUI, your proposal would help with a device's dependencies being
> > there when it's probed, but initcalls could still run into unfulfilled
> > dependencies.
> 
> One possible approach is to have a "wait_for_driver" flag, along with a
> timeout value (or perhaps using a fixed timeout value).  When a
> dependency gets registered with this flag set, the function call
> wouldn't return until the target device is bound to a driver or the
> timeout has elapsed.
> 
> This would make it easy to insert dependencies at probe time without 
> relying on deferred probing.

I'm not sure about this to be honest.  It seems like implementing it might
be sort of tricky.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/