linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] tee: generic TEE subsystem

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]

Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:02:24 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	valentin.manea@...wei.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	javier@...igon.com, emmanuel.michel@...com,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jean-michel.delorme@...com, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] tee: generic TEE subsystem

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 10:04:20AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 10:57:12AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:50:56AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > > > +struct tee_device {
> > > > +	char name[TEE_MAX_DEV_NAME_LEN];
> > > > +	const struct tee_desc *desc;
> > > > +	struct device *dev;
> > > 
> > > No, please embed the device in your structure, don't have a pointer to
> > > it.
> > 
> > Greg, "dev" here is not a locally allocated device, but the parent device.
> > It's actually the same as struct tee_device.miscdev.parent, which could be
> > used instead and this member deleted.
> 
> A miscdev doesn't need to have a "parent", it's just there to provide a
> character device node to userspace, not to represent a "device that you
> can do things with in the heirachy".
> 
> If you really want that, then use a real 'struct device' as should be
> done here.  Have just a pointer to a misc device, that is meant to be
> dynamic.

Let's rewind.

You are saying that "struct device *dev;" should be "struct device dev;"

I'm saying that you are mis-interpreting in your review what _that_ is.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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/