linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] i2c: add and start using i2c

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: <CAMRc=McfiKGT9RSJqZtCtHHHjwDLGPkNwA4Kot9-9frfpCGVmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:17:49 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, 
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, Khalil Blaiech <kblaiech@...dia.com>, 
	Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, 
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, 
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@...nel.org>, 
	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>, 
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] i2c: add and start using i2c_adapter-specific
 printk helpers

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:03 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 3:24 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 11:02:22AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > It's been another year of discussing the object life-time problems at
> > > > conferences. I2C is one of the offenders and its problems are more
> > > > complex than those of some other subsystems. It seems the revocable[1]
> > > > API may make its way into the kernel this year but even with it in
> > > > place, I2C won't be able to use it as there's currently nothing to
> > > > *revoke*. The struct device is embedded within the i2c_adapter struct
> > > > whose lifetime is tied to the provider device being bound to its driver.
> > > >
> > > > Fixing this won't be fast and easy but nothing's going to happen if we
> > > > don't start chipping away at it. The ultimate goal in order to be able
> > > > to use an SRCU-based solution (revocable or otherwise) is to convert the
> > > > embedded struct device in struct i2c_adapter into an __rcu pointer that
> > > > can be *revoked*. To that end we need to hide all dereferences of
> > > > adap->dev in drivers.
> > >
> > > No, this is not the way to do it. You start with designing and showing
> > > what the end result will look like *before* you start rewriting world
> > > like you are doing here.
> >
> > The paragraph you're commenting under explains exactly what I propose
> > to do: move struct device out of struct i2c_adapter and protect the
> > pointer storing its address with SRCU. This is a well-known design
> > that's being generalized to a common "revocable" API which will
> > possibly be available upstream by the time we're ready to use it.
>
> Revocable, as presented in plumbers, is not going upstream.
>

Oh really? :)

https://lore.kernel.org/all/2026011607-canister-catalyst-9fdd@gregkh/

> > You know I can't possibly *show* the end result in a single series
> > because - as the paragraph before explains - we need to first hide all
> > direct dereferences of struct device in struct i2c_adapter behind
> > dedicated interfaces so that we when do the conversion, it'll affect
> > only a limited number of places. It can't realistically be done at
> > once.
>
> You can post an RFC converting one driver with a proper description of
> the problem you're trying to solve.
>

It's not a one-driver problem. It's a subsystem-wide problem requiring
a subsystem-wide solution. Wolfram explained it really well in his
summary, I'm not going to repeat it here.

I also don't agree that i2c-specific helpers make code harder to read.
Is device_set_node() harder to read than

dev->fwnode = fwnode;
dev->of_node = to_of_node(fwnode);

?

Even if you answer yes - it at least helps hide the implementation
details of the OF layer where fwnode-level is preferred. We do it all
the time in the kernel. This kind of helpers allows easier transitions
when some implementation detail needs to change - as is the case here.

Bartosz