linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: cdev: bail out of poll() if the device goes down

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, 17 Aug 2023 09:27:37 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: cdev: bail out of poll() if the device goes down

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:41:06PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 2:20 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > Wake up all three wake queues (the one associated with the character
> > > device file, the one for V1 line events and the V2 line request one)
> > > when the underlying GPIO device is unregistered. This way we won't get
> > > stuck in poll() after the chip is gone as user-space will be forced to
> > > go back into a new system call and will see that gdev->chip is NULL.
> > >
> > > Bartosz Golaszewski (5):
> > >   gpio: cdev: ignore notifications other than line status changes
> > >   gpio: cdev: rename the notifier block and notify callback
> > >   gpio: cdev: wake up chardev poll() on device unbind
> > >   gpio: cdev: wake up linereq poll() on device unbind
> > >   gpio: cdev: wake up lineevent poll() on device unbind
> >
> > I see why this is needed and while the whole notification chain
> > is a bit clunky I really cannot think about anything better so:
> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> >
>
> The issue I have is with the repurposing/reuse of the existing notifier
> block that sends line changed events to the chardev.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but now all line requests will receive those
> events as well.
> They have no business receiving those events, and it scales badly.
>
> My preference would be for a separate nb for the chip removal to keep
> those two classes of events distinct.
>

I would normally agree if there was a risk of abuse of those
notifications by drivers but this is all private to gpiolib. And line
requests that receive line state notifications simply ignore them.
This isn't a bottleneck codepath IMO so where's the issue? We would be
using a second notifier head of 40 bytes to struct gpio_device for no
reason.

It's your code for most part so if you insist, I can rework it but I'm
more in favor of repurposing the existing notifier.

Bartosz