linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: don't fiddle with GPIOLIB private members

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: <CAMRc=Mfae+=HPPWzsG8bgK2CGOGY9GPkS5VZcwLyr_yY8A_y2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:12:44 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: don't fiddle with GPIOLIB private members

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:05 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:47:54AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 04:40:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:10 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 08:32:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > > -     /* Used by sysfs and configfs callbacks. */
> > > > > > > > -     dev_set_drvdata(&gc->gpiodev->dev, chip);
> > > > > > > > +     /* Used by sysfs callbacks. */
> > > > > > > > +     dev_set_drvdata(swnode->dev, chip);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > dev pointer of firmware node is solely for dev links. Is it the case here?
> > > > > > > Seems to me you luckily abuse it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so. If anything we have a helper in the form of
> > > > > > get_dev_from_fwnode() but it takes reference to the device while we
> > > > > > don't need it - we know it'll be there because we created it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This information (struct device of the GPIO device) can also be
> > > > > > retrieved by iterating over the device children of the top platform
> > > > > > device and comparing their fwnodes against the one we got passed down
> > > > > > from probe() but it's just so many extra steps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or we can have a getter in gpio/driver.h for that but I don't want to
> > > > > > expose another interface is we can simply use the fwnode.
> > > > >
> > > > > dev pointer in the fwnode strictly speaking is optional. No-one, except
> > > > > its solely user, should rely on it (its presence and lifetime).
> > > >
> > > > Where is this documented? Because just by a quick glance into
> > > > drivers/base/core.c I can tell that if a device has an fwnode then
> > > > fwnode->dev gets assigned when the device is created and cleared when
> > > > it's removed (note: note even attached to driver, just
> > > > created/removed). Seems like pretty reliable behavior to me.
> > >
> > > Yes, and even that member in fwnode is a hack in my opinion. We should not mix
> > > layers and the idea in the future to get rid of the fwnode_handle to be
> > > _embedded_ into struct device. It should be separate entity, and device
> > > instance may use it as a linked list. Currently we have a few problems because
> > > of the this design mistake.
> >
> > I don't see how this would work if fwnodes can exist before struct
> > device is even created.
>
> That's whole idea behind swnodes. They (ideally) should be created _before_
> any other object they are being used with. This is how it works today.
>

Yes, this is what I meant: if fwnodes can be created before struct
device (as it is now) and their life-time is separated then how could
you possibly make the fwnode part of struct device?

> And doing swnode->dev = ... contradicts a lot: layering, lifetime objects, etc.
>

No it doesn't. We have the software node - the template for the
device. It can only be populated with a single device entry. Once it's
done, I don't see why you wouldn't want to assign this device to its
corresponding software node. Provided locking is in place etc.

> > They - after all - represent the actual
> > physical device hierarchy which may or may not be populated at
> > run-time depending on many factors.
>
> No. This is a mistaken assumption.
>

How so?

> > Once populated, being able to retrieve the software representation of
> > the device (struct device) from the node from which it was populated
> > sounds like a reasonable thing to do. What are those problems and are
> > they even linked to this issue?
> >
> > > The get_dev_from_fwnode() is used only in devlink and I want to keep it that way.
> > > Nobody else should use it, really.
> >
> > I don't care all that much, I can get the device from the children of
> > the platform device. Still comparing fwnodes, though this time the
> > other way around.
>
> Fine, but do not use dev pointer from fwnode, esp. software node.
>

I will do it but I'd like to clarify the above at some point.

Bart

> > > We can discuss with Saravana, but I don't believe he can convince me otherwise.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>