linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: mockup: add locking

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]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Me9Ypsz_NH7j1K1TxR8u=9qF9opKPri10Jkn3G=_tdssg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 10:09:02 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: mockup: add locking

pt., 16 lis 2018 o 22:43 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> > While no user reported any race condition problems with gpio-mockup,
> > let's be on the safe side and use a mutex when performing any changes
> > on the dummy chip structures.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
>
> I tried to apply this but it failed, does it require patch 1?
>

Yes, because of the change in get_direction().

> I can pull in the next -rc after I merged the fix in that case
> and we can apply on top.
>

This is fine, it's aimed for 4.21 anyway.

> __gpio_*
> I tend to dislike __underscore_notation because I feel it
> is semantically ambguous. I prefer a proper name, even
> to the point that I prefer inner_function_foo over __foo,
> but it's your driver and I might be a bit grumpy. :)
>

I think this is a common and intuitive pattern in the kernel codebase.
Many subsystems and drivers use '__' to mark functions that execute
internal logic and expect certain locks to be held etc.

If you don't mind, I'd like to leave it like this.

Bart