linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] of/reconfig: Always use the same structure for notifiers

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: <1416956874.5089.13.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:07:54 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] of/reconfig: Always use the same structure for
 notifiers

On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 22:33 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> The OF_RECONFIG notifier callback uses a different structure depending
> on whether it is a node change or a property change. This is silly, and
> not very safe. Rework the code to use the same data structure regardless
> of the type of notifier.

I fell pretty good about this one except...

> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index b9d1dfdbe5bb..9fe6002c1d5a 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -1711,12 +1711,11 @@ static void stage_topology_update(int core_id)
>  static int dt_update_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
>  				unsigned long action, void *data)
>  {
> -	struct of_prop_reconfig *update;
> +	struct of_reconfig_data *update = data;
>  	int rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
>  
>  	switch (action) {
>  	case OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY:
> -		update = (struct of_prop_reconfig *)data;

Should we assert/bug on !update->dn / update->prop ?

(Same for the rest of the patch)

Or do you reckon it's pointless ?

Ben.


--
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/