linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:22:26 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Ravi Chandra Sadineni <ravisadineni@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of
 RTC device

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 7:59 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> >> index 4b11f0309eee..ccb6aea4f1d4 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> >> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev,
> >>         unsigned long flags;
> >>         struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
> >>         struct wakeup_source *__ws;
> >> +       struct platform_device *pdev;
> >>         int ret = 0;
> >>
> >>         if (rtcdev)
> >> @@ -99,6 +100,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev,
> >>                 return -1;
> >>
> >>         __ws = wakeup_source_register(dev, "alarmtimer");
> >> +       pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer", -1, NULL, 0);
> >
> > Don't you need to check for an error here?  If pdev is an error you'll
> > continue on your merry way.  Before your patch if you got an error
> > registering the device it would have caused probe to fail.
>
> Yes, that return value should be checked
>
> > I guess you'd only want it to be an error if "rtcdev" is NULL?
>
> If rtcdev is not NULL then this code is not reached. See the begin of
> this function :)

Wow, not sure how I missed that.  I guess the one at the top of the
function is an optimization, though?  It's being accessed without the
spinlock which means that it's not necessarily reliable, right?  I
guess once the rtcdev has been set then it is never unset, but it does
seem like if two threads could call alarmtimer_rtc_add_device() at the
same time then it's possible that we could end up calling
wakeup_source_register() for both of them.  Did I understand that
correctly?  If I did then maybe it deserves a comment?

-Doug