linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] hwmon: (ina3221) Return -ENODATA for two alarms attributes

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:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:03:35 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     jdelvare@...e.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] hwmon: (ina3221) Return -ENODATA for two alarms
 attributes

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:14:26PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:39:17PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:24:23PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > There is nothing critically wrong to read these two attributes
> > > > without having a is_enabled() check at this point. But reading
> > > > the MASK_ENABLE register would clear the CVRF bit according to
> > > > the datasheet. So it'd be safer to fence for disabled channels
> > > > in order to add pm runtime feature.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c
> > > > index d61688f04594..3e98b59108ee 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c
> > > > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ static int ina3221_read_curr(struct device *dev, u32 attr,
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > >  	case hwmon_curr_crit_alarm:
> > > >  	case hwmon_curr_max_alarm:
> > > > +		if (!ina3221_is_enabled(ina, channel))
> > > > +			return -ENODATA;
> > > 
> > > Makes sense, but can you check what the sensors command does with this ?
> > 
> > Not quite understanding the question. Do you mean the user case
> > causing the race condition -- wiping out the CVRF bit?
> > 
> No. Question is what the "sensors" command reports if reading the alarm
> attribute returns -ENODATA. If it reports an error, we would have a regression.

I see. I will return 0 instead.

Thanks
Nicolin