linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] um: track 'parent' device in a local variable

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: <CAPcyv4gmNtnS47YDOCw6EjQ4Kz7OF8TN+j95cQxU4ZWmTUXZyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:32:26 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc:	"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hch@....de" <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] um: track 'parent' device in a local variable

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Bart Van Assche
<bart.vanassche@...disk.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 10:47 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>> In preparation for the removal of 'driverfs_dev' from 'struct gendisk'
>> use a local variable to track the parented vs un-parented case in
>> ubd_disk_register().
>>
>> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
>> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>> Reported-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c |    5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
>> index ef6b4d960bad..8ec7b4112f55 100644
>> --- a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
>> +++ b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
>> @@ -801,6 +801,7 @@ static void ubd_device_release(struct device *dev)
>>  static int ubd_disk_register(int major, u64 size, int unit,
>>                              struct gendisk **disk_out)
>>  {
>> +       struct device *dev = NULL;
>>         struct gendisk *disk;
>>
>>         disk = alloc_disk(1 << UBD_SHIFT);
>> @@ -823,12 +824,12 @@ static int ubd_disk_register(int major, u64 size,
>> int unit,
>>                 ubd_devs[unit].pdev.dev.release = ubd_device_release;
>>                 dev_set_drvdata(&ubd_devs[unit].pdev.dev,
>> &ubd_devs[unit]);
>>                 platform_device_register(&ubd_devs[unit].pdev);
>> -               disk->driverfs_dev = &ubd_devs[unit].pdev.dev;
>> +               dev = &ubd_devs[unit].pdev.dev;
>>         }
>>
>>         disk->private_data = &ubd_devs[unit];
>>         disk->queue = ubd_devs[unit].queue;
>> -       add_disk(disk);
>> +       device_add_disk(dev, disk);
>>
>>         *disk_out = disk;
>>         return 0;
>
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> The Reported-by tag is intended to give people credit who find bugs in the
> upstream kernel. What I reported was a bug not in the upstream kernel but in
> a previous version of this patch series so I think the "Reported-by" tag can
> be left out from this patch.

I see nothing wrong with using it to give credit to patches during
review, I also do this when static analysis finds a problem in a patch
before it gets upstream.  If the report fixes upstream code then I
additionally add a "Fixes" tag.  If you'd rather I don't list you as
reported-by that's fine, but there's nothing in the definition of
Reported-by in Documentation/SubmittingPatches that requires the bug
to be upstream first.

> Additionally, please consider to use a more descriptive name instead of
> "dev", e.g. "parent".

Sure, will do.