netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Get rid of get_driver() and put

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: <20120125000634.GA1178@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:06:34 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
	Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Michael Buesch <m@...s.ch>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Get rid of get_driver() and put_driver()

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Greg:
> 
> This patch series removes the get_driver() and put_driver() routines
> from the kernel.
> 
> Those routines don't do anything useful.  Their comments say that they
> increment and decrement the driver's reference count, just like
> get_device()/put_device() and a lot of other utility routines.  But a
> struct driver is _not_ like a struct device!  It resembles a piece of
> code more than a piece of data -- it acts as an encapsulation of a
> driver.  Incrementing its refcount doesn't have much meaning because a
> driver's lifetime isn't determined by the structure's refcount; it's
> determined by when the driver's module gets unloaded.
> 
> What really matters for a driver is whether or not it is registered.  
> Drivers expect, for example, that none of their methods will be called
> after driver_unregister() returns.  It doesn't matter if some other
> thread still holds a reference to the driver structure; that reference
> mustn't be used for accessing the driver code after unregistration.  
> get_driver() does not do any checking for this.
> 
> People may have been misled by the kerneldoc into thinking that the
> references obtained by get_driver() do somehow pin the driver structure
> in memory.  This simply isn't true; all it pins is the associated
> private structure.  Code that needs to pin a driver must do it some
> other way (probably by calling try_module_get()).
> 
> In short, these routines don't do anything useful and they can actively 
> mislead people.  Removing them won't introduce any bugs that aren't 
> already present.  There is no reason to keep them.

Very nice work, all now applied, thanks for doing this.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html