linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Don't create a platform

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:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:50:29 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Don't create a platform_device for
 IOAPIC/IOxAPIC

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:06:44AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The main problem is that representing anything hot-removable as a
> platform device is inherently fragile, as the platform bus type has no
> idea whatever about things that may physically go away and platform
> drivers don't expect that devices may vanish from under them in
> general and so on.  Unregistration alone doesn't help much with that,
> so IMO at least for now it's better to avoid using platform_device for
> hot-removable stuff.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. So patch 2 could be dropped, should I
resend without that patch or do you want to pick them up from this post?


	Joerg