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]

Message-ID: <20201031085327.GA6112@lst.de>
Date:   Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:53:27 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, 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 11:40:33AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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.

The regressions were during suspend then the tpm gets removed.  In
fact I'm pretty sure it is an existing problem that the change in the
lookup just surfaced in a way that the test bot notices, but I didn't
want to guard the block changes on it.