linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v5.13

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: <YJBA1iYK7npit9vn@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 18:28:38 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v5.13

On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:03:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Al,
>  would you mind taking a look at this part:
> 
> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 12:32 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
> > You'll notice that we have a bunch of configfs commits in our tree not acked by
> > the configfs maintainers. These commits implement the concept of committable
> > items in configfs - something that was well defined in the documentation for
> > years but has remained unimplemented. Despite the first submission of these
> > patches back in November 2020[1] and repeated pings & resending, configfs
> > maintainers have remained unresponsive. After reviewing these on the GPIO
> > mailing list, we decided to pick them up ourselves and send them your way
> > together with the first user: the new GPIO simulator.
> 
> It doesn't look huge to me, and I don't care all that deeply about
> configfs, and honestly, I'm not seeing huge amounts of actual
> development there, with recent commits all being about cleanup of vfs
> changes (eg things like the new idmapping changes etc).
> 
> That said, I really don't want to pull that with some core sanity checking.
> 
> So Al, do you see anything horrendous in how that configfs thing uses
> a rename to do kind of an "atomic swap" of configfs state?

Give me a few hours; configfs is playing silly buggers with a lot of
structures when creating/tearing down subtrees, and I'd actually
expect more trouble with configfs data structures than with VFS ones.

I'll take a look.