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:   Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:21:52 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] drivers/base: bugfix for supplier<-consumer ordering in device_kset

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 4:47:07 AM CEST Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:36 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 8:50:38 AM CEST Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > commit 52cdbdd49853 ("driver core: correct device's shutdown order")
> > > places an assumption of supplier<-consumer order on the process of probe.
> > > But it turns out to break down the parent <- child order in some scene.
> > > E.g in pci, a bridge is enabled by pci core, and behind it, the devices
> > > have been probed. Then comes the bridge's module, which enables extra
> > > feature(such as hotplug) on this bridge.
> >
> > So what *exactly* does happen in that case?
> >
> I saw the  shpc_probe() is called on the bridge, although the probing
> failed on that bare-metal. But if it success, then it will enable the
> hotplug feature on the bridge.

I don't understand what you are saying here, sorry.

device_reorder_to_tail() walks the entire device hierarchy below the target
and moves all of the children in there *after* their parents.

How can it break "the parent <- child order" then?

Thanks,
Rafael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ