linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the pca984x chips

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: <eb97edc2-3a16-2931-2f19-a80a5ab4d88b@axentia.se>
Date:   Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:55:56 +0100
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Adrian Fiergolski <adrian.fiergolski@...n.ch>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the
 pca984x chips

On 2018-03-05 16:53, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> @@ -97,59 +98,83 @@ static const struct chip_desc chips[] = {
>>  		.nchans = 2,
>>  		.enable = 0x4,
>>  		.muxtype = pca954x_ismux,
>> +		.id = { .manufacturer_id = I2C_DEVICE_ID_NONE },
> 
> Can't we just leave this empty and add a NULL pointer check below when
> testing for the device id?

Nope, it's not a pointer. I didn't think it should be, but maybe it
should? The drawback is that you have to create an extra variable
for each of the chips that do need an id, and I didn't fancy that...

Cheers,
Peter