linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] thermal/core: Introduce locked version of thermal_zone_device

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 06:11:57 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] thermal/core: Introduce locked version of
 thermal_zone_device_update

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 02:01:49PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:25 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 08:15:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 3:09 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In thermal_zone_device_set_mode(), the thermal zone mutex is released only
> > > > to be reacquired in the subsequent call to thermal_zone_device_update().
> > > >
> > > > Introduce __thermal_zone_device_update() as locked version of
> > >
> > > Did you mean "unlocked"?
> > >
> > No, I did mean "locked", as in "must be called with thermal zone device
> > mutex acquired".
> >
> > locked:
> >
> > void __thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> >                                   enum thermal_notify_event event)
> > {
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> > unlocked:
> >
> > void thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> >                                 enum thermal_notify_event event)
> > {
> >         mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
> >         if (device_is_registered(&tz->device))
> >                 __thermal_zone_device_update(tz, event);
> >         mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
> > }
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> > Should I phrase or explain it differently ?
> 
> I would rather say "bare" or something like that so it is all clear to
> people like me, but it is your call.

I updated the commit description to use "must be called with thermal
device mutex held". I kept 'locked' in the subject; I don't think using
'bare' there would add any clarity. Hope that is ok.

Thanks,
Guenter