linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/18] block: open code 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:06:00 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] block: open code kobj_map into in block/genhd.c

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:49:11AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:40 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:32:42PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:22:36PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > After this, you want me to get rid of kobj_map, right?  Or you don't
> > > > care as block doesn't use it anymore?  :)
> > >
> > > I have a patch to kill it, but it causes odd regressions with the
> > > tpm driver according to the kernel test.  As I have grand plans that
> > > build on the block ѕide of this series for 5.11, I plan to defer the
> > > chardev side and address it for 5.12.
> >
> > Ok, sounds good.
> >
> > Wow, I just looked at the tpm code, and it is, um, "interesting" in how
> > it thinks device lifespans work.  Nothing like having 4 different
> > structures with different lifespans embedded within a single structure.
> > Good thing that no one can dynamically remove a TPM device during
> > "normal" operation.
> 
> /sys/.../unbind?

I said "normal" operations :)

Anyone who uses unbind and is suprised when things go "boom" is naive.

thanks,

greg k-h