linux-kernel - Re: [RFT 3/7] firmware: make fw_add_devm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL1mrZ6LqV0WKBY=w_kZzzcSrUD6Z5YqToSS2qmNaS4Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:31:11 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     cantabile.desu@...il.com, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, pali.rohar@...il.com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        nbroeking@...com, Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Abhay_Salunke@...l.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        jewalt@...innovations.com, oneukum@...e.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT 3/7] firmware: make fw_add_devm_name() return 0 if cache present

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> Currently fw_add_devm_name() returns 1 if the firmware cache
> was already set. This makes it complicated for us to check for
> correctness. It is actually non-fatal if the firmware cache
> is already setup, so just return 0, and simplify the checkers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>

That'll teach me to read all the patches first. ;)

Honestly, I'd just fold this into the prior patch: there's only one
caller and it's exactly about checking the return value.

-Kees

> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_loader.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c
> index 48932581c70c..a385622bf3e1 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c
> @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int fw_add_devm_name(struct device *dev, const char *name)
>
>         fwn = fw_find_devm_name(dev, name);
>         if (fwn)
> -               return 1;
> +               return 0;
>
>         fwn = devres_alloc(fw_name_devm_release, sizeof(struct fw_name_devm),
>                            GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ int assign_fw(struct firmware *fw, struct device *device,
>         if (device && (opt_flags & FW_OPT_UEVENT) &&
>             !(opt_flags & FW_OPT_NOCACHE)) {
>                 ret = fw_add_devm_name(device, fw_priv->fw_name);
> -               if (ret && ret != 1) {
> +               if (ret) {
>                         mutex_unlock(&fw_lock);
>                         return ret;
>                 }
> --
> 2.16.2
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security