linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] amba: bus: balance firmware node reference counting

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: <ZQn+IMMuPpwwZGPp@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 23:01:36 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] amba: bus: balance firmware node reference
 counting

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 07:26:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Currently the ACPI code doesn't bump the reference count of
> the firmware node, while OF counter part does. Not that it's
> a problem right now, since ACPI doesn't really use the reference
> counting for firmware nodes, it still makes sense to make code
> robust against any changes done there. For this,
>  - switch ACPI case to use device_set_node() to be unified with OF
>  - move reference counting to amba_device_add()
>  - switch to use firmware nodes instead of OF ones
> 
> In the result we will have reference counting done in the same module
> for all callers independently on the nature of firmware node behind.

Any comment on this? I would like to have this applied so I can do something
similar to the platform driver code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko