linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: mfd-core: Add mechanism for removal of a subset of children

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: <20200616100625.GT71940@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:06:25 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: mfd-core: Add mechanism for removal of a
 subset of children

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:58:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > Does this match how you would expect this to be used?
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> > I do have some concerns. The code can't use mfd_get_cell since it
> > returns a const pointer, although the pointer in platform_device
> > isn't const so we access that directly, could update mfd_get_cell? We
> > also don't have access to mfd_dev_type outside of the mfd core so
> > its hard to check we are actually setting the mfd_cell of actual
> > MFD children, I guess just checking for mfd_cell being not NULL is
> > good enough?
> 
> Hmmm... looks like I missed the fact that you needed additional
> processing between the removal of each batch of devices.  My
> implementation simply handles the order in which devices are removed
> (a bit like initcall()s).
> 
> How about the inclusion of mfd_remove_devices_late(), whereby
> mfd_remove_devices() will refuse to remove devices tagged with
> MFD_DEP_LEVEL_HIGH.
> 

Yeah this should work fine for my use-case.

> Not sure why, but I really dislike the idea of device removal by
> arbitrary value/tag, as I see it spawning all sorts of weird and
> wonderful implications/hacks/abuse.
> 

Its definitely a spectrum with flexibility covering more
use-cases but also definitely opening things up to more abuse. If
you are more comfortable with this approach that is fine with me.

Would you like me to have a crack at coding it up this way? Or
did you want to do a patch?

Thanks,
Charles