linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fbdev: s1d13xxxfb: add missed unregister

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eda0b4c0-93ff-dfb3-4f63-907a8bef01ec@samsung.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:22:02 +0100
From:   Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To:     Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
Cc:     Kristoffer Ericson <kristoffer.ericson@...il.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fbdev: s1d13xxxfb: add missed unregister_framebuffer
 in remove


On 3/10/20 3:30 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> The driver calls register_framebuffer() in probe but does not call
> unregister_framebuffer() in remove.
> Rename current remove to __s1d13xxxfb_remove() for error handler.
> Then add a new remove to call unregister_framebuffer().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
>   - Rename the existing remove and add a new one to ensure the correctness
>     of error handler in probe.
> 
>  drivers/video/fbdev/s1d13xxxfb.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/s1d13xxxfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/s1d13xxxfb.c
> index 8048499e398d..bafea3d09bba 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/s1d13xxxfb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/s1d13xxxfb.c
> @@ -721,9 +721,8 @@ static void s1d13xxxfb_fetch_hw_state(struct fb_info *info)
>  		xres, yres, xres_virtual, yres_virtual, is_color, is_dual, is_tft);
>  }
>  
> -
>  static int
> -s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +__s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)

The new function can be made void as it always returns 0.

Also please use the standard CodingStyle while at it:

void __s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)

>  {
>  	struct fb_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>  	struct s1d13xxxfb_par *par = NULL;
> @@ -752,6 +751,18 @@ s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int
> +s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)

Please use the standard CodingStyle while at it:

static int s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)

> +{
> +	struct fb_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	if (info)

'info' check is superfluous in the ->remove only code-path.

> +		unregister_framebuffer(info);
> +
> +	return __s1d13xxxfb_remove(pdev);
> +}
> +
> +
>  static int s1d13xxxfb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	struct s1d13xxxfb_par *default_par;
> @@ -895,7 +906,7 @@ static int s1d13xxxfb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	return 0;
>  
>  bail:
> -	s1d13xxxfb_remove(pdev);
> +	__s1d13xxxfb_remove(pdev);
>  	return ret;
>  
>  }
> 

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics