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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:11:15 +0100
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Frank Rowand
 <frowand.list@...il.com>, Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>, Max Zhen
 <max.zhen@....com>, Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@....com>, Stefano Stabellini
 <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>, Jonathan Cameron
 <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
 Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund
 <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Android Kernel Team
 <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal()

Hi Saravana,

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:31:13 -0800
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:

..

> > +void device_link_wait_removal(void)
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * devlink removal jobs are queued in the dedicated work queue.
> > +        * To be sure that all removal jobs are terminated, ensure that any
> > +        * scheduled work has run to completion.
> > +        */
> > +       drain_workqueue(fw_devlink_wq);  
> 
> Is there a reason this needs to be drain_workqueu() instead of
> flush_workqueue(). Drain is a stronger guarantee than we need in this
> case. All we are trying to make sure is that all the device link
> remove work queued so far have completed.

I used drain_workqueue() because drain_workqueue() allows for jobs already
present in a workqueue to re-queue a job and drain_workqueue() will wait
also for this new job completion.

I think flush_workqueue() doesn't wait for this chain queueing.

In our case, my understanding was that device_link_release_fn() calls
put_device() for the consumer and the supplier.
If refcounts reaches zero, devlink_dev_release() can be called again
and re-queue a job.

In device_link_wait_removal(), I don't want to break this kind of
recursive removal.

Maybe I missed something.
Should I still change to flush_workqueue() ?

Best regards,
Hervé

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ