linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 3/6] clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances

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: <20150202225036.421.43421@quantum>
Date:	Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:50:36 -0800
From:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	"Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Paul Walmsley" <paul@...an.com>,
	"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, t-kristo@...com,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 3/6] clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-02-02 14:35:59)
> On 02/02/15 13:31, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> Julia,
> >>
> >> Is there a way we can write a coccinelle script to check for this? The
> >> goal being to find all drivers that are comparing struct clk pointers or
> >> attempting to dereference them. There are probably other frameworks that
> >> could use the same type of check (regulator, gpiod, reset, pwm, etc.).
> >> Probably anything that has a get/put API.
> > Comparing or dereferencing pointers of a particular type should be 
> > straightforward to check for.  Is there an example of how to use the 
> > parent_index value to fix the problem?
> >
> 
> I'm not sure how to fix this case with parent_index values generically.
> I imagine it would be highly specific to the surrounding code to the
> point where we couldn't fix it automatically. For example, if it's a clk
> consumer (not provider like in this case) using an index wouldn't be the
> right fix. We would need some sort of clk API that we don't currently
> have and I would wonder why clock consumers even care to compare such
> pointers in the first place.

Ack. Is there precedent for a "Don't do that" kind of response?

Regards,
Mike

> 
> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> 
--
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/