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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cbd2705d-9d43-4822-9b5c-ea437a2ccca7@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:55:18 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, jic23@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init and
 devm_mutex_destroy

On 11/27/23 19:09, 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().
>
> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/mutex.h  |  3 +++
>   kernel/locking/mutex.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
> index a33aa9eb9fc3..7f60cd842322 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
> @@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ do {									\
>   extern void __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name,
>   			 struct lock_class_key *key);
>   
> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
> +void devm_mutex_destroy(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
> +
>   /**
>    * mutex_is_locked - is the mutex locked
>    * @lock: the mutex to be queried
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index d973fe6041bf..a73124719dcb 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,43 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
>   
> +static void devm_mutex_release(struct device *dev, void *res)
> +{
> +	mutex_destroy(*(struct mutex **)res);
> +}
> +
> +static int devm_mutex_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct mutex **r = res;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!r || !*r))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return *r == data;
> +}
> +
> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	struct mutex **ptr;
> +
> +	ptr = devres_alloc(devm_mutex_release, sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ptr)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	mutex_init(lock);
> +
> +	*ptr = lock;
> +	devres_add(dev, ptr);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_mutex_init);
> +
> +void devm_mutex_destroy(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	devres_release(dev, devm_mutex_release, devm_mutex_match, lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_mutex_destroy);
> +
>   /*
>    * @owner: contains: 'struct task_struct *' to the current lock owner,
>    * NULL means not owned. Since task_struct pointers are aligned at

These APIs are specific to devres. I don't believe it is suitable to put 
them into the generic mutex.h header file. All devres_* functions are 
defined in include/linux/device.h which is probabably not included in 
mutex.h. You may consider putting these APIs into device.h instead.

Cheers,
Longman