linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: silead_dmi - do not treat all devices as i2c

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:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:33:30 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: silead_dmi - do not treat all devices
 as i2c_clients

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:08:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:45:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> >> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> > I2C bus has both i2c clients and adapter devices, so we must be careful in
>> >> > notifier code and verify that we are actually dealing with an i2c client
>> >> > before using it as such.
>> >>
>> >> > -static void silead_ts_dmi_add_props(struct device *dev)
>> >> > +static void silead_ts_dmi_add_props(struct i2c_client *client)
>> >> >  {
>> >>
>> >> > -       struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
>> >>
>> >> I would replace this by
>> >> struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise looks good for me.
>> >
>> > Andy, this series looks like a candidate for 4.11-fixes. We're already at rc5
>> > though, so if we are going to do that, I'd like to see a stronger statement in
>> > the commit log about how this issue manifests currently - if it does.
>>
>> It makes less changes for any (potentially) backported code.
>> I'm not insisting and even can do myself.
>
> Sorry, I was referring to the series itself, not your feedback above. You
> assigned this to yourself in patchwork, so I was just noting that this patch
> series may be a candidate for fixes to 4.11, rather than testing/for-next for
> 4.12. Your call.

Ah, thanks Darren for clarification.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko