linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] gpio: Add revocable provider handle for struct gpio

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: <aYWwv2Ip_dvS7E9w@google.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 09:13:35 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] gpio: Add revocable provider handle for struct
 gpio_chip

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 05:57:15PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 9:52 AM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 07:58:44AM -0500, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:10:54 +0100, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> said:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> > > > index 3abb90385829..cd136d5b52e9 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> > > > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@
> > > >   * @device_notifier: used to notify character device wait queues about the GPIO
> > > >   *                   device being unregistered
> > > >   * @srcu: protects the pointer to the underlying GPIO chip
> > > > + * @chip_rp: revocable provider handle for the corresponding struct gpio_chip.
> > > >   * @pin_ranges: range of pins served by the GPIO driver
> > > >   *
> > > >   * This state container holds most of the runtime variable data
> > > > @@ -79,6 +80,7 @@ struct gpio_device {
> > > >     struct workqueue_struct *line_state_wq;
> > > >     struct blocking_notifier_head device_notifier;
> > > >     struct srcu_struct      srcu;
> > > > +   struct revocable_provider __rcu *chip_rp;
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why __rcu? This doesn't live in a different address space, only the internal
> > > resource it protects does. If anything - this could be __attribute__((noderef))
> > > but even that is questionable as this is an opaque structure.
> >
> > For fixing a race on the pointer itself.  See also [1].
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260129143733.45618-2-tzungbi@kernel.org
> 
> So we're just using a double RCU here? One to protect the resource and
> another to protect the protector of the resource? I can't say I'm a
> fan of this. I really want to like this interface but is there really
> no way to hide the implementation details from the caller? Isn't this
> the whole point? As it is: the user still has to care about an
> RCU-protected pointer.

Will think about it but I have no better idea for now.

Ideally, I think the user doesn't need to interact with the RCU (even if it's
annotated with __rcu) but revocable APIs should handle it correctly.