linux-kernel - PM runtime auto-cleanup macros

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878qimv24u.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:00:17 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: PM runtime auto-cleanup macros

Hi,

while I worked on the code cleanups in the drivers with the recent
auto-cleanup macros, I noticed that pm_runtime_get*() and _put*() can
be also managed with the auto-cleanup gracefully, too.  Actually we
already defined the __free(pm_runtime_put) in commit bfa4477751e9, and
there is a (single) user of it in pci-sysfs.c.

Now I wanted to extend it to pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() as:

DEFINE_FREE(pm_runtime_put_autosuspend, struct device *,
           if (_T) pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(_T))

Then one can use it like

	ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;
	struct device *pmdev __free(pm_runtime_put_autosuspend) = dev;

that is similar as done in pci-sysfs.c.  So far, so good.

But, I find putting the line like above at each place a bit ugly.
So I'm wondering whether it'd be better to introduce some helper
macros, e.g.

#define pm_runtime_auto_clean(dev, var) \
	struct device *var __free(pm_runtime_put) = (dev)

#define pm_runtime_auto_clean_autosuspend(dev, var) \
	struct device *var __free(pm_runtime_put_autosuspend) = (dev)

and the code will be like:

	pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
	pm_runtime_auto_clean(dev, pmdev);

or
	ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;
	pm_runtime_auto_clean_autosuspend(dev, pmdev);

Alternatively, we may define a class, e.g.

	CLASS(pm_runtime_resume_and_get, pmdev);
	if (pmdev.ret < 0)
		return pmdev.ret;

but it'll be a bit more code to define the full class, and the get*()
and put*() combination would be fixed with this approach -- which is a
downside.

All above are an idea for now.  Let me know if I should go further
along with this, or there is already a better another approach.

(And the macros can be better named, sure :)

thanks,

Takashi