linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to

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:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:40:40 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc:     linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to_device() helper

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 06:42:05AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Am 11.11.19 um 06:27 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:56:09AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Use of soc_device_to_device() in driver modules causes a build failure.
> >> Given that the helper is nicely documented in include/linux/sys_soc.h,
> >> let's export it as GPL symbol.
> > 
> > I thought we were fixing the soc drivers to not need this.  What
> > happened to that effort?  I thought I had patches in my tree (or
> > someone's tree) that did some of this work already, such that this
> > symbol isn't needed anymore.
> 
> I do still see this function used in next-20191108 in drivers/soc/.
> 
> I'll be happy to adjust my RFC driver if someone points me to how!

Look at c31e73121f4c ("base: soc: Handle custom soc information sysfs
entries") for how you can just use the default attributes for the soc to
create the needed sysfs files, instead of having to do it "by hand"
which is racy and incorrect.

> Given the current struct layout, a type cast might work (but ugly).
> Or if we stay with my current RFC driver design, we could use the
> platform_device instead of the soc_device (which would clutter the
> screen more than "soc soc0:") or resort to pr_info() w/o device.

Ick, no, don't cast blindly.  What do you need the pointer for?  Is this
for in-tree code?

thanks,

greg k-h