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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:48:32 +0100
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking
 support

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 06:34:13PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:39:54PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:51:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > One of the actions carried out by device_link_add() is to reorder
> > > the lists used for device shutdown and system suspend/resume to
> > > put the consumer device along with all of its children and all of
> > > its consumers (and so on, recursively) to the ends of those lists
> > > in order to ensure the right ordering between all of the supplier
> > > and consumer devices.
> > 
> > There's no explanation as to why this order is ensured to be
> > correct, I think its important to document this. From our discussions
> > at Plumbers it seems the order is ensured due to the fact that order
> > was already implicitly provided through platform firmware (ACPI
> > enumeration is one), adjusting order on the dpm list is just shuffling
> > order between consumer / provider, but nothing else.
> 
> ACPI specifies a hierarchy and the order on the dpm_list and
> devices_kset is such that children are behind their parent.
> 
> A device link specifies a dependency that exists in addition
> to the hierarchy, hence consumers need to be moved behind
> their supplier.  And not only the consumers themselves but
> also recursively their children and consumers. Essentially
> the entire subtree is moved to the back.  That happens in
> device_reorder_to_tail() in patch 2.

Ah neat, I failed to notice this full subtree tree move, its
rather important.

> If another device is enumerated which acts as a supplier to
> an existing other supplier, that other supplier and all its
> dependents are moved behind the newly enumerated device,
> and so on.
> 
> That is probably correct so long as no loops are introduced
> in the dependency graph.

"Probably" is what concerns me, there is no formality about
the correctness of this.

> That is checked by device_is_dependent(),
> which is called from device_link_add(), and the addition of the
> link is aborted if a loop is detected.

And that is sufficient ?

 Luis