linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] pinctrl: stmfx: fix valid

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: <CACRpkdb1c-NHXDQXYS78VTcGPnJApmxjzZbF_cM8SUknhDiQ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 15:32:10 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>
Cc:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pinctrl: stmfx: fix valid_mask init sequence

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:09 AM Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com> wrote:

> With stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_init_valid_mask callback, gpio_valid_mask was used
> to initialize gpiochip valid_mask for gpiolib. But gpio_valid_mask was not
> yet initialized. gpio_valid_mask required gpio-ranges to be registered,
> this is the case after gpiochip_add_data call. But init_valid_mask
> callback is also called under gpiochip_add_data. gpio_valid_mask
> initialization cannot be moved before gpiochip_add_data because
> gpio-ranges are not registered.

Sorry but this doesn't add up, look at this call graph:

gpiochip_add_data()
  gpiochip_add_data_with_key()
    gpiochip_alloc_valid_mask()
    of_gpiochip_add()
    of_gpiochip_add_pin_range()
    gpiochip_init_valid_mask()

So the .initi_valid_mask() is clearly called *after*
of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() so this cannot be the real reason,
provided that the ranges come from the device tree. AFAICT that
is the case with the stmfx.

Can you check and see if the problem is something else?

Yours,
Linus Walleij