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:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:10:55 +0900
From:   Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
To:     Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...labora.com>
Cc:     Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
        Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Haixia Shi <hshi@...omium.org>,
        Ørjan Eide <orjan.eide@....com>,
        zain wang <wzz@...k-chips.com>,
        Yakir Yang <ykk@...k-chips.com>, Lin Huang <hl@...k-chips.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Mark Yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/40] drm/rockchip: analogix_dp: Fix invalid
 implementation of unbind

Hi Thierry,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Thierry Escande
<thierry.escande@...labora.com> wrote:
> From: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
>
> Current implementation of unbind dereferences the drvdata pointer
> assuming that it's its own data, however the ownership belongs to the
> analogix code, which means that the pointer is dereferenced with wrong
> type. Fix this by using the recently added platform data .cleanup()
> callback to do Rockchip-specific things at unbind.

First of all, thanks a lot for taking care of these patches. Much appreciated.

One thing to note, though, is that the four patches (31, 32, 33 and 39
in this series), which we initially made for fixing the problems
related, were later reverted and replaced by a cleaner solution.
Please take a look at this series on our gerrit:

https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/442390/
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/442392/
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/442391/

Perhaps we could skip this intermediate solution and just go with the
above 3 patches?

Best regards,
Tomasz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists