linux-kernel - Re: ARM: imx6: add missing put_device() call in imx6q_suspend

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: <1542979d-f7f6-bcf1-53c3-22b7c076ddc7@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:15:32 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-imx@....com
Cc:     Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM: imx6: add missing put_device() call in imx6q_suspend_init()

>> Do you find a previous update suggestion useful?
>>
>> ARM: imx6: Add missing put_device() call in imx6q_suspend_init()
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/5acd7308-f6e1-4b1e-c744-bb2e5fdca1be@web.de/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1151158/
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/9/125
…
> It is useful indeed.

Thanks for your positive feedback.


> Although I didn't run cocci script, since it can produce too many false result
> which is hard to filter out.

Would you like to clarify any corresponding software analysis options?


> BTW, I see you haver done the work already, I guess I won't send any patches
> related to 'missing put_device after of_find_device_by_node()'.

You may continue also with contributions in such a direction.
I would like to point out that other developers occasionally got into the mood
to improve implementation details in similar ways already.


> Any idea why these pathes didn't get applied ?

I can make assumptions about the reasons for the possibly questionable handling
of such patches.

Regards,
Markus