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: <4230060.J8vOtLMJv4@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 04 May 2016 14:35:01 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reset: allow to pass NULL pointer to reset_control_put()

On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:34:09 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> I thought about that a bit,
> but there might be some (not nice) drivers that rely on the current behavior.
> I did not want to break any boards with my patch.
> 
> So, should it be
> 
>           if (!rstc)
>                     return;
> or, perhaps
> 
>           if (!rstc || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(rstc)))
>                     return;

I think the latter is fine, but it would also be good which of the six
callers of the function actually rely on that behavior today, if any.

	Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ