linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] 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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeHsSvs5eUC2eUTCLJLKNcoPShXoH3fmA0J4GUQTMV1LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:33:09 +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, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, 
	will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, 
	nikitos.tr@...il.com, marek.behun@....cz, kabel@...nel.org, 
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com> wrote:
>
> 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()

Missing period at the end.

...

> Suggested by-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>

Needs properly spelled tag.

..

> +static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * When CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is off mutex_destroy is just a nop so

mutex_destroy()

> +        * no really need to register it in devm subsystem.

in the devm

> +        */
> +       return 0;
> +}

..

> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>

Without seeing much context can't say if there is a better (more
ordered) place to squeeze a new header to. Please, check.

..

After addressing the above comments
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko