linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] 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]

Message-ID: <99882775-af52-49ea-b17d-f3d1f23f8bbe@salutedevices.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:48:18 +0300
From:   George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "lee@...nel.org" <lee@...nel.org>,
        "vadimp@...dia.com" <vadimp@...dia.com>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "longman@...hat.com" <longman@...hat.com>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "nikitos.tr@...il.com" <nikitos.tr@...il.com>
CC:     "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "kernel@...utedevices.com" <kernel@...utedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init

Hello Christophe

On 12/14/23 13:06, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
...
> 
> So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ?

I'm not the one who make a choice here. The patch [1] you're talking 
about was seen by everyone but it seems like no one had shown interest.
For me personally approach with #define mutex_destroy is not very usual
but if even slight mixing device with mutex.h is unacceptable what else
can we do? Avoiding the need to allocate devm slot for empty 
mutex_destroy is more important.

Should I make series #4 with the patch [1] to give it a last chance?

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/377e4437-7051-4d88-ae68-1460bcd692e1@redhat.com/T/#m3f6df30ffccaccb1df4669a327f349164f572931


> I can't see the point to spread mutex functions into devm-helpers.h
> 
> Adding a mutex_destroy macro for this purpose looks odd. And if someone
> defines a new version of mutex_destroy() and forget the macro, it will
> go undetected.
> 
> Usually macros of that type serve the purpose of defining a fallback
> when the macro is not defined. In that case, when someone adds a new
> version without defining the macro, it gets detected because if
> conflicts with the fallback.
> But in your case it works the other way round, so I will just go undetected.
> 
> For me the best solution remains to use mutex.h and have
> devm_mutex_init() defined or declared at the same place as mutex_destroy().
> 


> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
>> ---
>>    include/linux/devm-helpers.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>    1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> index 74891802200d..4043c3481d2e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>     */
>>
>>    #include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
>>    #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>
>>    static inline void devm_delayed_work_drop(void *res)
>> @@ -76,4 +77,30 @@ static inline int devm_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
>>           return devm_add_action(dev, devm_work_drop, w);
>>    }
>>
>> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
>> +static inline void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_destroy(res);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
>> + * @dev:       Device which lifetime mutex is bound to
>> + * @lock:      Pointer to a mutex
>> + *
>> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when the driver is detached.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>> + */
>> +static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_init(lock);
>> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
>> +       return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
>> +#else
>> +       return 0;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>>    #endif
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>

-- 
Best regards
George