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:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:46:55 +0100
From:   One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] tty: tty_struct dependency clean-ups

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:05:07 -0500
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes
> <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri,  9 Sep 2016 17:37:01 -0500
> > Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> This patch series removes or prepares to remove some of the dependencies
> >> on tty_struct within tty_port drivers. This will allow using tty_ports
> >> directly for so called UART slave devices.  
> >
> > You can create a tty_struct kernel side with the two tiny changes I
> > posted before. Why do you want to do invasive tree wide changes when you
> > can do simple ones ?  
> 
> Well, I don't want to do invasive changes, but I thought the idea was
> to use tty_port struct without a tty_struct.

I posted some tiny patches to break the file/tty requirement in the base
tty code for comment a while ago and they were very tiny for most ldiscs
(n_tty unsurprisingly wouldn't work this way but does anyone need kernel
mode n_tty ?)

Moving termios into the tty_port is IMHO a good thing to do whichever
approach is taken.

> I was planning to keep termios out of tty_port and make clients of
> tty_port carry it if for nothing else not quite understanding all the
> details around the lifetime, init and locking of it. If there's always
> a tty_struct then there's not much point moving it other than which
> struct makes more sense. But that would cause some churn.

The termios lifetime is the lifetime of the port, although it may get
reset at some times.

Alan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ