linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv7 3/7] kho: drop notifiers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aPsZzxmGjrJSzB4q@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:16:47 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	brauner@...nel.org, corbet@....net, graf@...zon.com, jgg@...pe.ca,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
	rdunlap@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/7] kho: drop notifiers

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:01:08PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> Hi Pasha,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21 2025, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> 
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> >
> > The KHO framework uses a notifier chain as the mechanism for clients to
> > participate in the finalization process. While this works for a single,
> > central state machine, it is too restrictive for kernel-internal
> > components like pstore/reserve_mem or IMA. These components need a
> > simpler, direct way to register their state for preservation (e.g.,
> > during their initcall) without being part of a complex,
> > shutdown-time notifier sequence. The notifier model forces all
> > participants into a single finalization flow and makes direct
> > preservation from an arbitrary context difficult.
> > This patch refactors the client participation model by removing the
> > notifier chain and introducing a direct API for managing FDT subtrees.
> >
> > The core kho_finalize() and kho_abort() state machine remains, but
> > clients now register their data with KHO beforehand.
> >

...

> > @@ -1280,7 +1298,7 @@ static __init int kho_init(void)
> >  	kho_enable = false;
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> > -late_initcall(kho_init);
> > +fs_initcall(kho_init);
> 
> Is this change related to this patch? Also, why fs_initcall?

memblock registers sub-fdt in late_initcall(), so we should have the root
fdt ready by then. 
  
> -- 
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.