linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: at91: initialize config parameter to 0

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:24:53 +0100
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	"Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard" <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: at91: initialize config parameter to 0

On 07/12/2013 14:08, Alexandre Belloni :
> When passing a not initialized config parameter, at91_pinconf_get() would return
> a bogus value. Fix that by initializing it to zero before using it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
> ---
>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> index 6446dc804aa7..b0b78f3468ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> @@ -722,7 +722,8 @@ static int at91_pinconf_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>   	unsigned pin;
>   	int div;
>
> -	dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:%d, pin_id=%d, config=0x%lx", __func__, __LINE__, pin_id, *config);
> +	*config = 0;
> +	dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:%d, pin_id=%d", __func__, __LINE__, pin_id);
>   	pio = pin_to_controller(info, pin_to_bank(pin_id));
>   	pin = pin_id % MAX_NB_GPIO_PER_BANK;

Beyond this patch, I must say that I am puzzled by this function.

What I read from the prototype documentation and what I see in different 
implementations is different...

Linus, can we have a review of this function because it seems not in 
line with what is used for u300 (but on the other hand looks like the 
what is returned by pinctrl-exynos5440.c driver for example).

What would be the consequences if we change this function's behavior: I 
mean use of -EINVAL for pin configuration "available but disabled" as 
said in include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf.h?

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/