linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: 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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:31:25 +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>, "kabel@...nel.org"
	<kabel@...nel.org>
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 v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init

Hello Christophe

On 3/7/24 16:50, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 07/03/2024 à 03:40, George Stark a écrit :
>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@...utedevices.com. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> Using of devm API leads to a 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()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>> ---
>>    Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you helped alot
>>    to make this patch happen.
> 
> Up to you, I sent a RFC patch based on yours with my ideas included
> because an exemple is easier than a lot of words for understanding, and
> my scripts automatically sets the Signed-off-by: but feel free to change
> it to Suggested-by:

Although we had close ideas for the final patch in v4
you encouraged me to do it in the right (=effective) way and go back
from devm-helpers.h to mutex.h in the first place, reinforced the 
concept with appropriate examples from existing code, reviewed a lot. 
Thanks. Probably Suggested-by: is more suited here

-- 
Best regards
George