linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ipmi:bt-bmc: Fix error handling and status check

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, 4 May 2020 15:43:52 +0800
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     minyard@....org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipmi:bt-bmc: Fix error handling and status check

Hi, Corey:

On 2020/4/19 14:29, Tang Bin wrote:
> Hi, Corey:
>
> On 2020/4/18 21:49, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 04:02:29PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>>> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
>>> value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
>>> handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
>>> failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
>>> it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
>>> to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
>> You need to mention changing platform_get_irq to
>> platform_get_irq_optional in the header.
>>
>> Another comment inline below.
>>
>> Otherwise, this looks good.
>
> Got it. The v3 will be as follows：
>
> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative value
>
> returned will not be detected here. So fix error handling in
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(). And in the function bt_bmc_probe(),
>
> when get irq failed, it will print error message. So use
>
> platform_get_irq_optional() to simplify code. Finally in the
>
> function bt_bmc_remove() should make the right status
>
> check if get irq failed.
>
>>
>> You need to set this to rc.  Otherwise it will remain the interrupt
>> number assigned by platform_get_irq_optional().
>
> Yes, I think you are right. I'm not as considerate as you. Thank you 
> for your instruction.
>
> When get irq failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq' is negative; when request irq 
> failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq = 0' is right.
>
> So 'bt_bmc->irq <= 0' means irq failed.
>
> Now let me rearrange the logic here:
>
>     In bt_bmc_probe():
>
>         bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
>
>         if (bt_bmc->irq > 0) {
>
>         }
>
>
>     In bt_bmc_remove():
>
>         if (bt_bmc->irq <= 0)
>             del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
>
>
> If you think this logic is correct, I'll submit v3.
>
>
>
I know you're very busy, and you have handed me a lot before, so I 
should wait for your reply.

But I don't know whether my above logic is correct, so I take the 
liberty to write this email to you. I just wanted to say sorry for 
disturbing you.

Thanks,

Tang Bin