linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] leds: gpio: Fix device teardown on probe deferral

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: <552E34C7.2050903@samsung.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:52:07 +0200
From:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Cc:	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: gpio: Fix device teardown on probe deferral

On 04/15/2015 11:29 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 11:11 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> On 04/14/2015 11:23 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>>> In gpio_leds_create(), when devm_get_gpiod_from_child() fails with
>>> -EPROBE_DEFER on the second gpio led to be created, the first already
>>> registered led is not torn down properly. This causes create_gpio_led()
>>> to fail for the first led on re-probe().
>>>
>>> Fix this misbehaviour by incrementing num_leds only if all
>>> potentially failing calls completed successfully.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>
>>> Cc: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>
>>> Cc: linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c | 5 +++--
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> For this patch:
>>
>> Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
>
> Jacek, Thanks!
>
>> I have a question regarding the sequence above on line 201:
>>
>> if (!led.name)
>>      return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>> Shouldn't this be also 'goto err"?
>
> Yes, every error within the loop has to goto the err label.
> Mind to send a patch fixing it?

OK, I'll take care of it.

-- 
Best Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
--
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/