linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] device property: constify property arrays values

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:38:31 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] device property: constify property arrays values

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:52:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 09:07 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On February 2, 2017 8:48:30 AM PST, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko
> > @linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 08:39 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Data that is fed into property arrays should not be modified, so
> > > 
> > > let's
> > > > mark
> > > > relevant pointers as const. This will allow us making source
> > > > arrays
> > > 
> > > as
> > > > const/__initconst.
> > > > 
> > > > Also fix memory leaks on errors in property_entry_copy().
> > > 
> > > While the code looks okay, I'm not sure what memory leaks you are
> > > referring to. The idea as far as I remember was to run *free()
> > > function
> > > if *copy() fails.
> > 
> > That could have been OK for internal function, but will not work for
> > public API, as it goes against normal pattern.
> > 
> > You will be old and grey and still correcting patches that would be
> > getting it wrong :)
> 
> Yes, which sounds not exactly as "we have memory leaks and here we are
> fixing them". So, my comment regarding to phrasing of the commit
> message. Someone might mistakenly think that it needs to be ported as
> earlier as this had been introduced.

OK, I'll leave it up to Rafael to massage the commit message as he sees
fit.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry