linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: wm8994-core: Don't use managed regulator bulk get API

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: <20160915150844.GE30169@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:38:44 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
        Krzysztof Kozłowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
        patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: wm8994-core: Don't use managed regulator bulk
 get API

On 15-09-16, 15:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:47:01PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 
> > Fix the kernel warnings and crashes by moving away from managed
> > regulator bulk get API by using regulator_bulk_get() and explicitly
> > calling regulator_put() for all the supplies in exit paths.
> 
> Moving away from regulator bulk get to regulator bulk get?

Moving away from "managed" regulator bulk get to regulator bulk get?
Isn't this how we call the devm_* APIs as?

> > -	ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(wm8994->dev, wm8994->num_supplies,
> > +	ret = regulator_bulk_get(wm8994->dev, wm8994->num_supplies,
> >  				 wm8994->supplies);
> 
> > +err_regulator_put:
> > +	for (i = wm8994->num_supplies - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> > +		regulator_put(wm8994->supplies[i].consumer);
> 
> Why are you unwinding regulator_bulk_get() with an open coded
> regulator_bulk_put()?

Because there is no regulator_bulk_put(). Should I add it?

> Also please think hard before including complete backtraces in upstream
> reports, they are very large and contain almost no useful information
> relative to their size so often obscure the relevant content in your
> message. If part of the backtrace is usefully illustrative then it's
> usually better to pull out the relevant sections.

Sure, will add only relevant bits in the next version.

-- 
viresh