linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support

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]

Message-ID: <4FC59968.1060600@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 21:52:08 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>
CC:	Dong Aisheng <b29396@...escale.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	rob.herring@...xeda.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support

On 05/29/2012 09:01 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 09:39:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/26/2012 10:52 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>>>> On 05/25/2012 07:36 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>> ...
>>>> If we don't do that, [lock ranges[i].gc] I would argue that we
>>>> shouldn't store ranges[i].gc, since it might become invalid - I
>>>> believe the only use of it is withinthis function?
>>>>
>>> In my option, i think it's ok to store it since they're just some data
>>> to describe
>>> hw properties. The gpio function may become invalid but not data.
>>> Is it reasonable to you?
>>
>> The problem is that if someone tries to dereference the gc field, and
>> it's no longer valid, which could cause an OOPS. Perhaps we can get away
>> just with a comment in the struct definition indicating that this field
>> should only be used by drivers that provided the gc field directly
>> rather than having it set up by DT, but then why even store it when
>> creating the ranges from DT in that case?
>
> Yes, you're right.
> Maybe we could both not store the gc filed for DT (currently we did not see
> the need to store it for dt, right?) and add a comment in the struct definition
> as you said. For non-dt users the driver owner should manage that field
> correctly with lock since it's provided directly by driver.
> Is that ok?

Yes, that makes sense to me. Thanks.
--
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/