linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] iio: core: Introduce cleanup.h support for mode locks

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: <DEPM2M0JZVLR.D8R992OGRBMD@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:33:56 -0500
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>, "Kurt Borja"
 <kuurtb@...il.com>, "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
 "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@...afoo.de>, "Michael Hennerich"
 <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@...nel.org>,
 "Benson Leung" <bleung@...omium.org>, "Antoniu Miclaus"
 <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>, "Gwendal Grignou" <gwendal@...omium.org>,
 "Shrikant Raskar" <raskar.shree97@...il.com>, "Per-Daniel Olsson"
 <perdaniel.olsson@...s.com>
Cc: "David Lechner" <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, "Andy Shevchenko" <andy@...nel.org>, "Guenter Roeck"
 <groeck@...omium.org>, "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] iio: core: Introduce cleanup.h support for mode
 locks

On Thu Dec 4, 2025 at 9:36 AM -05, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
>> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>> 
>> 	iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>
> We already went this patch and then reverted it. I guess before we did not had
> ACQUIRE() and ACQUIRE_ERR() but I'm not sure that makes it much better. Looking at the
> last two patches on how we are handling the buffer mode stuff, I'm really not convinced...
>
> Also, I have doubts sparse can keep up with the __cleanup stuff so I'm not sure the
> annotations much make sense if we go down this path. Unless we want to use both 
> approaches which is also questionable.

I think if we add iio_device_claim() or whatever the final name may be,
we can annotate that instead with acquires(&mlock) and maybe it could
work?

I will test that.

>
> - Nuno Sá


-- 
 ~ Kurt