netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] auxiliary: Implement refcounting

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: <Y+4pSlKeNHhD2nH2@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:02:02 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Temerkhanov, Sergey" <sergey.temerkhanov@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] auxiliary: Implement refcounting

Oh, one more fun thing:

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:42:41PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Temerkhanov, Sergey wrote:
> >  struct auxiliary_device {
> >  	struct device dev;
> > +	refcount_t refcnt;
> >  	const char *name;
> > +	struct wait_queue_head wq_head;
> >  	u32 id;

Sergey, you are adding an additional reference count to a structure that
is already properly reference counted!  So you are imposing 2 different
counts and lifecycles on a single tiny structure?  How is that even
supposed to work?

Again, please get reviews from internal Intel developers FIRST as is
required by all Intel kernel developers touching code like this.  You
know this, it is part of your internal development rules, please do not
try to ignore them, that's a sure way to get everyone to just ignore
your changes going forward.

thanks,

greg k-h