linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, when requesting pins

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:17:50 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	"B29396@...escale.com" <B29396@...escale.com>,
	"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"dongas86@...il.com" <dongas86@...il.com>,
	"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	"thomas.abraham@...aro.org" <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, when
 requesting pins

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com> wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote at Monday, February 20, 2012 2:15 PM:
>> >
>> > -       if (!function) {
>> > -               dev_err(pctldev->dev, "no function name given\n");
>> > -               return -EINVAL;
>> > -       }
>> > -
>>
>> Why should it be allowed to have a NULL owner? There is a
>> debug print involving it above but ... maybe this is over-cautious?
>
> My reasoning was that this is an internal function, so this isn't a user-
> supplied parameter we need to be paranoid about checking, and the places
> that call this function internally "obviously" don't pass NULL owner.
> Well, I suppose one place relies on the fact we checked elsewhere that
> map->dev_name != NULL.
>
> Still, I can see a defensive programming argument for keeping that check,
> although I suspect if we apply that argument we should probably check a
> lot more things too throughout the code?

Bah whatever, no big deal.

Patch applied!

Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
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/