linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mfd: intel_quark_i2c_gpio: remove clock tree on error path

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VfBp3A87YBHLbVB1iR_U31bWqWH_okhd-vdtR3-5ZMWjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:12:26 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mfd: intel_quark_i2c_gpio: remove clock tree on
 error path

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 02/17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c
>> index bdc5e27..43d8066 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c
>> @@ -150,11 +150,10 @@ static void intel_quark_unregister_i2c_clk(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>  {
>>       struct intel_quark_mfd *quark_mfd = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>>
>> -     if (!quark_mfd->i2c_clk || !quark_mfd->i2c_clk_lookup)
>> +     clk_unregister(quark_mfd->i2c_clk);
>> +     if (!quark_mfd->i2c_clk_lookup)
>>               return;
>> -
>>       clkdev_drop(quark_mfd->i2c_clk_lookup);
>
> It's probably not a great idea to unregister the clk before the
> lookup is dropped. I suppose nothing too bad will happen though
> because we handle this case in the framework and substitute dummy
> ops in place of the real ones.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Okay, I will re-do this. I think the correct one is to add
clk_unregister() call to the _register_i2c_clk().



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko