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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1469406536.8568.264.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:56 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	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 Sun, 2016-07-24 at 16:36 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 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() ?
> 
> Perhaps remove if shutdown does not exist.  What this really takes is
> someone to care enough to sort through this mess.

Right, I have a test patch doing just that which I'm about to start
testing internally.

Cheers,
Ben.