linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:22:50 +0100
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking
 support

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:25:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:19:02PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> > 
> > sorry for not responding to v5 of your series earlier, just sending
> > this out now in the hope that it reaches you before your travels.
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:51:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > - Modify device_links_check_suppliers(), device_links_driver_bound(),
> > >   device_links_no_driver(), device_links_driver_cleanup(), device_links_busy(),
> > >   and device_links_unbind_consumers() to walk link lists under device_links_lock
> > >   (to make the new "driver presence tracking" mechanism work reliably).
> > 
> > This change might increase boot time if drivers return -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
> "might"?  Please verify this before guessing....
> 
> And don't make this more complex than needed before actually determining
> a real issue.

As clarified by Rafael at Plumbers, this functional dependencies
framework assumes your driver / subsystem supports deferred probe,
if it does not support its not clear what will happen....

We have no explicit semantics to check if a driver / subsystem
supports deferred probe.

  Luis