linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] devm-helpers: introduce 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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 20:11:55 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
Cc:     pavel@....cz, lee@...nel.org, vadimp@...dia.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
        hdegoede@...hat.com, mazziesaccount@...il.com, jic23@...nel.org,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:07 PM George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com> 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() is
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init().

...

Do you need to include mutex.h?

...

> +/**
> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
> + * @dev:       Device which lifetime work is bound to
> + * @lock:      Pointer to a mutex
> + *
> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when driver is detached.

the driver

Have you run scripts/kernel-doc -v -Wall -none ... against this file?
I'm pretty sure it will complain.

> + */


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko