linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-blkfront: emit KOBJ

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: <20170906145710.7o6wmnfxq32z2bgw@dhcp-3-128.uk.xensource.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:57:10 +0100
From:   Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
CC:     Vincent Legout <vincent.legout@...di.net>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
        <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-blkfront: emit KOBJ_OFFLINE uevent when
 detaching device

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:18:03PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> > merged.
> > 
> > I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> > discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
> > possible. Would doing something in xenbus_otherend_changed() make sense?
> > But do we have enough information there? I'd be happy to get any advice,
> > I've re-attached the original patch.
> 
> Maybe you could add a callback to struct xenbus_driver which is called
> by xenbus_otherend_changed() if available and which will return the
> missing information (e.g. the kobj).

Hello,

I'm still unsure we should call KOBJ_OFFLINE, mostly because I don't
see any other block devices doing so. AFAICT it seems to be used only
by cpu and memory hotplug. Maybe xenbus should use the device_offline
function instead on each device it wants to remove?

>From my limited Linux bus handling understanding, this seems to be
more in line with what ACPI does for example.

Thanks, Roger.