linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to

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: <20190919221456.GA63675@minitux>
Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:14:56 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Murali Nalajala <mnalajal@...eaurora.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to_device API

On Thu 19 Sep 14:58 PDT 2019, Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 19 Sep 14:32 PDT 2019, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:13:44PM -0700, Murali Nalajala wrote:
> > > > If the soc drivers want to add custom sysfs entries it needs to
> > > > access "dev" field in "struct soc_device". This can be achieved
> > > > by "soc_device_to_device" API. Soc drivers which are built as a
> > > > module they need above API to be exported. Otherwise one can
> > > > observe compilation issues.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Murali Nalajala <mnalajal@...eaurora.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/base/soc.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/soc.c b/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > index 7c0c5ca..4ad52f6 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc_dev)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	return &soc_dev->dev;
> > > >  }
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(soc_device_to_device);
> > > >  
> > > >  static umode_t soc_attribute_mode(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > >  				struct attribute *attr,
> > > 
> > > What in-kernel driver needs this?
> > > 
> > 
> > Half of the drivers interacting with the soc driver calls this API,
> > several of these I see no reason for being builtin (e.g.
> > ux500 andversatile). So I think this patch makes sense to allow us to
> > build these as modules.
> > 
> > > Is linux-next breaking without this?
> > > 
> > 
> > No, we postponed the addition of any sysfs attributes in the Qualcomm
> > socinfo driver.
> > 
> > > We don't export things unless we have a user of the export.
> > > 
> > > Also, adding "custom" sysfs attributes is almost always not the correct
> > > thing to do at all.  The driver should be doing it, by setting up the
> > > attribute group properly so that the driver core can do it automatically
> > > for it.
> > > 
> > > No driver should be doing individual add/remove of sysfs files.  If it
> > > does so, it is almost guaranteed to be doing it incorrectly and racing
> > > userspace.
> > > 
> > 
> > The problem here is that the attributes are expected to be attached to
> > the soc driver, which is separate from the platform-specific drivers. So
> > there's no way to do platform specific attributes the right way.
> > 
> > > And yes, there's loads of in-kernel examples of doing this wrong, I've
> > > been working on fixing that up, look at the patches now in Linus's tree
> > > for platform and USB drivers that do this as examples of how to do it
> > > right.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed, this patch should not be used as an approval for any crazy
> > attributes; but it's necessary in order to extend the soc device's
> > attributes, per the current design.
> 
> Wait, no, let's not let the "current design" remain if it is broken!
> 
> Why can't the soc driver handle the attributes properly so that the
> individual driver doesn't have to do the create/remove?
> 

The custom attributes that these drivers want to add to the common ones
are known in advance, so I presume we could have them passed into
soc_device_register() and registered together with the common
attributes...

It sounds like it's worth a prototype.

Regards,
Bjorn