| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a1e74f7c-06d3-dfd0-c467-ea68af6f081f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:43:47 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"sre@...nel.org" <sre@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"mgross@...ux.intel.com" <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
"bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"wens@...e.org" <wens@...e.org>,
"saravanak@...gle.com" <saravanak@...gle.com>,
"heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com" <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"myungjoo.ham@...sung.com" <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"agross@...nel.org" <agross@...nel.org>,
"cw00.choi@...sung.com" <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] drivers: base: Add resource managed version of
delayed work init
Hi,
On 2/15/21 12:31 PM, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:37:26AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2/15/21 8:22 AM, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2021-02-13 at 16:59 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2/13/21 4:27 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/21 7:03 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> I think something like this should work:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static int devm_delayed_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
>>>>>> struct delayed_work *w,
>>>>>> void (*worker)(struct
>>>>>> work_struct *work)) {
>>>>>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(w, worker);
>>>>>> return devm_add_action(dev, (void (*action)(void
>>>>>> *))cancel_delayed_work_sync, w);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about the cast, that may need something like this
>>>>>> instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*devm_action_func)(void *);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static int devm_delayed_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
>>>>>> struct delayed_work *w,
>>>>>> void (*worker)(struct
>>>>>> work_struct *work)) {
>>>>>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(w, worker);
>>>>>> return devm_add_action(dev,
>>>>>> (devm_action_func)cancel_delayed_work_sync, w);
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, you can not type cast function pointers in C. It is
>>>>> against the C ABI.
>>>>> I am sure it is done in a few places in the kernel anyway, but
>>>>> those are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I see, bummer.
>>>
>>> I think using devm_add_action() is still a good idea.
>>
>> Yes, we could also just have a 1 line static inline function to do
>> the function-cast. Like this:
>>
>> static inline void devm_delayed_work_autocancel_func(void *work)
>> {
>> cancel_delayed_work_sync(work);
>> }
>>
>> static inline int devm_delayed_work_autocancel(struct device *dev, struct delayed_work *w, void (*worker)(struct work_struct *work))
>> {
>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(w, worker);
>> return devm_add_action(dev, devm_delayed_work_autocancel_func, w);
>> }
>>
>> Both functions will then simply be compiled out in files which do not
>> use them.
>>
>>>> If we add a devm_clk_prepare_enable() helper that should probably be
>>>> added
>>>> to drivers/clk/clk-devres.c and not to drivers/base/devres.c .
>>>>
>>>> I also still wonder if we cannot find a better place for this new
>>>> devm_delayed_work_autocancel() helper but nothing comes to mind.
>>>
>>> I don't like the idea of including device.h from workqueue.h - and I
>>> think this would be necessary if we added
>>> devm_delayed_work_autocancel() as inline in workqueue.h, right?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I also see strong objection towards the devm managed clean-ups.
>>
>> Yes it seems that there are some people who don't like this, where as
>> others do like them.
>>
>>> How about adding some devm-helpers.c in drivers/base - where we could
>>> collect devm-based helpers - and which could be enabled by own CONFIG -
>>> and left out by those who dislike it?
>>
>> I would make this something configurable through Kconfig, but if
Clarification I meant to write: "I would NOT make this something configurable through Kconfig".
>> go the static inline route, which I'm in favor of then we could just
>> have a:
>>
>> include/linux/devm-cleanup-helpers.h
>>
>> And put everything (including kdoc texts) there.
>>
>> This way the functionality is 100% opt-in (by explicitly including
>> the header if you want the helpers) which hopefully makes this a
>> bit more acceptable to people who don't like this style of cleanups.
>>
>> I would be even happy to act as the upstream maintainer for such a
>> include/linux/devm-cleanup-helpers.h file, I can maintain it as part
>> of the platform-drivers-x86 tree (with its own MAINTAINERS entry).
>>
>> Greg, would this be an acceptable solution to you ?
>
> I don't know, sorry, let's revisit this after 5.12-rc1 is out, with a
> patch set that I can review again, and we can go from there as I can't
> do anything until then...
Ok.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists