linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: Add shutdown() to vio_driver and vio

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: <87im4ldrft.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 22:30:14 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     benh@...nel.crashing.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: Add shutdown() to vio_driver and vio_bus

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 4/1/21 5:13 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> Currently, neither the vio_bus or vio_driver structures provide support
>> for a shutdown() routine.
>> 
>> Add support for shutdown() by allowing drivers to provide a
>> implementation via function pointer in their vio_driver struct and
>> provide a proper implementation in the driver template for the vio_bus
>> that calls a vio drivers shutdown() if defined.
>> 
>> In the case that no shutdown() is defined by a vio driver and a kexec is
>> in progress we implement a big hammer that calls remove() to ensure no
>> further DMA for the devices is possible.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>
> Ping... any comments, problems with this approach?

The kexec part seems like a bit of a hack.

It also doesn't help for kdump, when none of the shutdown code is run.

How many drivers do we have? Can we just implement a proper shutdown for
them?

cheers