linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: core: Avoid lockdep reports when resolving supplies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2023 01:14:44 +0900
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        David Collins <quic_collinsd@...cinc.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: core: Avoid lockdep reports when
 resolving supplies

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:57:36PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> Does that long period of time cover a large section of code? I'm not so
> much concerned about holding the lock for a long time. I'm mostly
> concerned about holding the lock across the debugfs APIs, and
> potentially anything else that debugfs might lock against. If the lock
> is only really needed to modify the list in a safe manner then it may be
> better to make it a little more complex so that we don't exit the
> regulator framework with some rdev locks held.

I'm not sure that I understand the specific concerns with the debugfs
APIs?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)