| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:35:59 +0200 From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> Subject: Platform device id Hi Greg, all, While platform_device.id is a u32, platform_device_add() handles "-1" as a special id value. This has potential for confusion and bugs. One such bug was reported to me by David Brownell: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2007-September/001787.html And since then I've found two other drivers affected (uartlite and i2c-pxa). Could we at least make platform_device.id an int so as to clear up the confusion? I doubt that the id will ever be a large number anyway. To go one step further, I am questioning the real value of this naming exception for these "unique" platform devices. On top of the bugs I mentioned above, it has potential for compatibility breakage: adding a second device of the same type will rename the first one from "foo" to "foo.0". It also requires specific checks in many individual platform drivers. All this, as I understand it, for a purely aesthetic reason. I don't think this is worth it. Would there be any objection to simply getting rid of this exception and having all platform devices named "foo.%d"? -- Jean Delvare - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists