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: <CAHp75VdNjqZdy0+aSbBzn9CwEwHUhjwED+KRVqkdOMc_N+nX9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:07:28 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
Cc: 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>, 
	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 4:35 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
> >
> > 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.

This, indeed, needs a (broader) discussion and I appreciate that Kurt
sent this RFC. Jonathan, what's your thoughts?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko