linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/property: Introduce of_fwnode

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, 6 Nov 2018 16:55:37 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/property: Introduce of_fwnode_name()

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:40:37PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:18:14AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

> > Looking at patch 4, if matching the name is what you want to do, then
> > use the DT name matching functions. They were added in 4.19.
> 
> That is something that the of_fwnode_get_named_child_node() needs
> to use (would have needed).
> 
> Regardless of what we do with that callback, fwnode_name() needs to
> return the name in from that for example of_node_name_eq() takes as
> the second parameter. So "node-name@...t-address" is not OK. Sorry for
> not realizeing that before.
> 
> So I guess we need to either get the "node-name" from that full_name
> member in of_fwnode_name() (Andy, are you OK with that?), or is there
> already a helper that does it for us?

Looking into existing API I think we need something like

of_node_name_extract()

of_node_name_eq()
{
	name = of_node_name_extract();
	return strlen()...strncmp()...;
}

The question is who is going to allocate and free memory for the name out of it.

OTOH, of_fwnode_get_named_child_node() might need to copy that code which
brings the consistency issue (several places to maintain the same set of rules,
i.e. how we extract name out of full_name).

So, removal of name field shouldn't be done until we resolve the issue with
of_fwnode_get_named_child_node().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko