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: <20220223140901.GP10061@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:09:01 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] driver core: Add dma_cleanup callback in bus_type On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:46:27AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:04:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > > > 1 - tmp->driver is non-NULL because tmp is already bound. > > > 1.a - If tmp->driver->driver_managed_dma == 0, the group must currently be > > > DMA-API-owned as a whole. Regardless of what driver dev has unbound from, > > > its removal does not release someone else's DMA API (co-)ownership. > > > > This is an uncommon locking pattern, but it does work. It relies on > > the mutex being an effective synchronization barrier for an unlocked > > store: > > > > WRITE_ONCE(dev->driver, NULL) > > Only the driver core should be messing with the dev->driver pointer as > when it does so, it already has the proper locks held. Do I need to > move that to a "private" location so that nothing outside of the driver > core can mess with it? It would be nice, I've seen a abuse and mislocking of it in drivers Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists