netdev - Re: [RFC 0/5] devlink: add an explicit locking API

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: <20211102081606.5bc39f21@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:16:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] devlink: add an explicit locking API

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 09:44:17 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 01:04:03PM -0700, Edwin Peer wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > The average driver author doesn't know locking well and won't be able to
> > > use devlink reference counting correctly.  
> > 
> > I think this problem largely only exists to the extent that locking
> > and lifecycle requirements are poorly documented. :P  
> 
> I'm talking about general locking concepts that are perfectly documented
> and still people do crazy things with it. :)

Yet you seem to be pushing for drivers to implement their own locking.