linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cdev: Finish the cdev api with queued mode support

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: <809823fb-6eb6-8ce9-c49a-d85b03897fc7@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:50:43 -0700
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cdev: Finish the cdev api with queued mode support




On 2021-01-20 12:38 p.m., Dan Williams wrote:
> ...common reference count handling scenarios were addressed, but the
> shutdown-synchronization problem was only mentioned as something driver
> developers need to be aware in the following note:
> 
>     NOTE: This guarantees that associated sysfs callbacks are not running
>     or runnable, however any cdevs already open will remain and their fops
>     will still be callable even after this function returns.
> 
> Remove that responsibility from driver developers with the concept of a
> 'queued' mode for cdevs.

I find the queued name confusing. What's being queued?

> +static const struct file_operations cdev_queued_fops = {
> +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +	.open = cdev_queued_open,
> +	.unlocked_ioctl = cdev_queued_ioctl,
> +	.compat_ioctl = compat_ptr_ioctl,
> +	.llseek = noop_llseek,
> +};

Why do we only protect these fops? I'd find it a bit confusing to have
ioctl protected from use after del, but not write/read/etc.

Logan