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

Message-ID: <7aeab2a4-72d9-452f-af86-1e44d5133b67@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 11:05:22 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...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>,
 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>, 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 12/9/25 4:34 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-12-06 at 18:46 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:07:28 +0200
>> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I was pretty heavily involved in discussions around ACQUIRE() and it's use
>> in CXL and runtime PM (though that's still evolving with Rafael trying
>> to improve the syntax a little).  As you might guess I did have this use
>> in mind during those discussions.
>>
>> As far as I know by avoiding the for loop complexity of the previous
>> try we made and looking (under the hood) like guard() it should be much
>> easier and safer to use.  Looking at this was on my list, so I'm very happy
>> to see this series from Kurt exploring how it would be done.
>>
>> Sparse wise there is no support for now for any of the cleanup.h magic
>> other than ignoring it.  That doesn't bother me that much though as these
>> macros create more or less hidden local variables that are hard to mess
>> with in incorrect ways.
>>
>> So in general I'm very much in favour of this for same reasons I jumped
>> in last time (which turned out to be premature!)
>>
>> This will be particularly useful in avoiding the need for helper functions
>> in otherwise simple code flows.
>>
> 
> Ok, it seems we are going down the path to introduce this again. I do agree the new ACQUIRE()
> macros make things better (btw, I would be in favor of something similar to pm runtime). Though
> I'm still a bit worried about the device lock helper (the iio_device_claim one). We went through
> some significant work in order to make mlock private (given historical abuse of it) and this
> is basically making it public again. So I would like to either think a bit harder to see if we
> can avoid it or just keep the code in patches 5 and 6 as is (even though the dance in there is
> really not pretty).
> 
> At the very least I would like to see a big, fat comment stating that lock is not to be randomly
> used by drivers to protect their own internal data structures and state.
> 
> - Nuno Sá

Due to the way that conditional guards only extend regular guards, I don't
think there is a way to not expose the basic mlock wrapper. So "don't use this
unless you really know what you are doing" docs seem like the best option.