linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: tegra: make tegra_clocks_apply_init_table arch

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: <20140716071932.GB7978@ulmo>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:19:33 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
	Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@...dia.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: tegra: make tegra_clocks_apply_init_table
 arch_initcall

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:24:32PM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
> index d081732..65cde4e 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
> @@ -290,10 +290,13 @@ struct clk ** __init tegra_lookup_dt_id(int clk_id,
>  
>  tegra_clk_apply_init_table_func tegra_clk_apply_init_table;
>  
> -void __init tegra_clocks_apply_init_table(void)
> +static int __init tegra_clocks_apply_init_table(void)
>  {
>  	if (!tegra_clk_apply_init_table)
> -		return;
> +		return 0;

Shouldn't this be an error? Or perhaps WARN()? To make sure this gets
noticed since it's obviously a mistake. I'm wondering if perhaps we
could simply remove this check and let the kernel crash if it isn't a
valid function pointer. Is there a case where this not being set at
this point is even possible (or valid?). If not, perhaps it would be
better to just call the SoC generation versions of this function from
here directly rather than going through a function pointer?

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped