linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: let of_clk_get_parent

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: <20151201004446.GC17532@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:44:46 -0800
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: let of_clk_get_parent_name() fail for invalid
 clock-indices

On 11/30, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> Of course we can, although we have to mention "clock-indices" twice.
> >>
> >> A good thing for of_get_property() is that we can get both the value
> >> and the length
> >> at the same time.
> >>
> >
> > Ok. Well if we don't want to count them again, perhaps a goto
> > jump over an unconditional return NULL would be better?
> >
> >         of_property_for_each_u32(clkspec.np, "clock-indices", prop, vp, pv) {
> >                 if (index == pv) {
> >                         index = count;
> >                         goto found;
> >                 }
> >                 count++;
> >         }
> >
> >         return NULL;
> > found:
> >
> > Or since the macro for of_property_for_each_u32() tests the vp
> > poitner for NULL, we can check that pointer too...
> >
> >         of_property_for_each_u32(clkspec.np, "clock-indices", prop, vp, pv) {
> >                 if (index == pv) {
> >                         index = count;
> >                         break;
> >                 }
> >                 count++;
> >         }
> >
> >         /* We didn't find anything */
> >         if (!vp)
> >                 return NULL;
> >
> > I guess I prefer the latter approach here.
> >
> 
> No.
> 
> Neither of your two suggestions works because they are false positive.
> 

So if (!vp && count) then?

-- 
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/