[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023111440-stray-uncloak-484c@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:27:57 -0500
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: proc: fix a procfs entry leak
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:53:47PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:50 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > My point is: the same rule should apply to in-kernel consumers. When
> > they request a resource, they get a reference to it. The resource is
> > managed by its provider. If the provider is going down, it frees the
> > resource. The consumer tries to use it -> it gets an error. I'm not
> > convinced by the life-time rules argument. The consumer is not
> > CREATING a resource. It's REQUESTING it for usage. IMO this means it
> > REFERENCES it, not OWNS it. And so is only responsible for putting the
> > reference.
> >
> > Bartosz
> >
>
> Hi Thomas, Greg et al,
>
> I am at LPC and will present a talk on Wednesday 5:15pm at the kernel
> summit about object life-time issues. I'll reference this problem
> among others. Please consider it in your schedules, I think it'll be
> useful to discuss it in person as it's a generic problem in many
> driver subsystems.
Sounds great, I'll try to make it there!
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists