linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] gpio: use new gpio_set

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, 26 Mar 2019 13:03:02 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kundrát <jan.kundrat@...net.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] gpio: use new gpio_set_config() helper in more
 places

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 02:45:19PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 18:43:52 -0700
> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > index cf8a4402fef1..9762a836fec9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > @@ -2762,7 +2762,7 @@ int gpiod_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned debounce)
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	config = pinconf_to_config_packed(PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, debounce);
> > > -	return chip->set_config(chip, gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc), config);
> > > +	return gpio_set_config(chip, gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc), config);  
> > 
> > Are you sure this is correct ? This patch results in a number of tracebacks
> > in mainline. Reverting it fixes the problem.
> > 
> > gpio_set_config() seems to pack config, but it is already packed above.
> > That seems a bit suspicious.
> 
> I'll have a look. In the mean time, I'm fine with the patch being
> reverted.
> 

The problem is still seen in the latest kernel as of last night, and
I did not see any further activities. Should I send a revert request ?

Guenter