linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: dsa: register hwmon for any provided function

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: <973411308.896485.1429221939679.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	kernel@...oirfairelinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: dsa: register hwmon for any provided function

Hi Guenter,

> >          switch (index) {
> > +        case 0: /* temp1_input */
> > +                if (drv->get_temp)
> > +                        mode |= S_IRUGO;
> 
> This should be mandatory. Sorry, I don't really understand what you are
> trying to accomplish here.
> 
> Can you give me a real world example where a chip would support setting
> a limit but not reading it ?

I have no such example. I just did not see why this couldn't be allowed
(e.g. setting only set_temp_limit and get_temp_alarm looks fine to me).
But if you say that get_temp should be mandatory, I'm OK with that.

The primary goal of this patchset was to use DEVICE_ATTR_RW to declare
temp1_max, instead of reflecting the minimal permissions needed.

Best,
-v
--
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/