linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init and devm_mutex

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: <20231128164535.GT8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:45:35 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        jic23@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init and
 devm_mutex_destroy

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:09:10AM +0300, George Stark wrote:
> Using of devm API leads to certain order of releasing resources.
> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() will be
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init() and devm_mutex_destroy().
> 

Aside of the issue raised by Waiman, it is also very undesirable to
introduce EXPORT'ed symbols without a user. Please group this with a
patch that actually makes use of it.

No in-tree users, no export.