linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

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: <2026020624-buddhism-clavicle-7a90@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 16:13:00 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 03:28:46PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> I was surprised to learn that the revocable functionality was merged the other
> week given the community feedback on list and at LPC, but not least since there
> are no users of it, which we are supposed to require to be able to evaluate it
> properly.
> 
> The chromeos ec driver issue which motivated this work turned out not to need
> it as was found during review. And the example gpiolib conversion was posted
> the very same morning that this was merged which hardly provides enough time
> for evaluation (even if Bartosz quickly reported a performance regression).
> 
> Turns out there are correctness issues with both the gpiolib conversion and
> the revocable design itself that can lead to use-after-free and hung tasks (see
> [1] and [2]).
> 
> And as was pointed out repeatedly during review, and again at the day of the
> merge, this does not look like the right interface for the chardev unplug
> issue.
> 
> Despite the last-minute attempt at addressing the issues mentioned above
> incrementally, the revocable design is still fundamentally flawed (see patch
> 3/3).
> 
> We have processes like requiring a user before merging a new interface so that
> issues like these can be identified and the soundness of an API be evaluated.
> They also give a sense of when things are expected to happen, which allows our
> scarce reviewers to manage their time (e.g. to not be forced to drop everything
> else they are doing when things are merged prematurely).
> 
> There really is no reason to exempt any new interface from this regardless of
> whether one likes the underlying concept or not.
> 
> Revert the revocable implementation until a redesign has been proposed and
> evaluated properly.

After thinking about this a lot, and talking it over with Danilo a bit,
I've applied this series that reverts these changes.

Kernel developers / maintainers are only "allowed" one major argument /
fight a year, and I really don't want to burn my 2026 usage so early in
the year :)

Tzung-Bi, can you take the feedback here, and what you have learned from
the gpio patch series, and rework this into a "clean" patch series for
us to review and comment on for future releases?  That should give us
all a baseline on which to work off of, without having to worry about
the different versions/fixes floating around at the moment.

thanks,

greg k-h