linux-kernel - Re: kexec: device shutdown vs. remove

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: <1469365988.8568.255.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:13:08 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Joel Stanley <joel.stanley@....ibm.com>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@....ibm.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: kexec: device shutdown vs. remove

On Sat, 2016-07-23 at 22:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> I suspect that using (or depending on) the remove function may not be feasible
> anymore after the recent effort by Paul Gortmaker to make drivers explicitly
> non-modular if they are only configurable as boolean. In many cases, this
> involved dropping remove functions.

A lot of drivers we care about are modular. But maybe the right
approach is to do something like remove() if it exist and shutdown() if
it doesn't ? Or a new callback for kexec ? quiesce() ?

Cheers,
Ben.