linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] acpi spi: Initialize modalias from of

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: <20160720113753.GF6509@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:37:53 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...el.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] acpi spi: Initialize modalias from of_compatible

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:21:55PM +0300, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 01:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
> > subsystem.  This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
> > patches.  Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are
> > doing and make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're
> > doing.

> So the prefix should be something like "spi: acpi: "?

Yes.

> >> +	if (adev->data.of_compatible) {
> >> +		ret = acpi_of_modalias(adev, spi->modalias, sizeof(spi->modalias));
> >> +		if (ret) {
> >> +			spi_dev_put(spi);
> >> +			return AE_NOT_FOUND;
> >> +		}

> > The only reason this could fail currently is that there wasn't a
> > compatible in the first place so why don't we just handle it like the no
> > compatible case?  It's probably not realistic but it seems like there's
> > a small chance this could regress some platform if we do add more error
> > detection in acpi_of_modalias().

> If acpi_of_modalias fails for some new reason wouldn't it be better to
> fail explicitly rather than ignore it?

The current code will happily proceed to create a device without doing
this parsing so clearly we can do that.  It's not clear to me that it's
better to refuse to create the device at all than to soldier on and
create a device with only the native ACPI information, perhaps it just
needs a comment explaining why we do that.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)