linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device

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, 4 Dec 2013 02:38:24 -0500
From:	"Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	EDAC <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:01:50 +0100
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
>  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, "H.
>  Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, EDAC
>  <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> 
> Can you please fix your
> 
> Mail-Followup-To:
> 
> header? It is impossible to reply to your emails without fiddling with
> the To: and Cc: by hand which gets very annoying over time.

I add some configs in my muttrc. Hope it works.

> 
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:23:30PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote:
> > I have some concerns about it. if device_register is failed, it will
> > backtraces all kinds of conditions automatically, including put_device
> > definately. So do we really need an extra put_device when it returns
> > failure?
> 
> Do you mean the "done:" label in device_add() which does put_device()
> and which gets called by device_register()?
> 

Not only. I noticed that another put_device under label "Error:".

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)