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: <20200623073220.GV30139@dragon>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:32:21 +0800
From:   Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-imx@....com,
        Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        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()

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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.

Markus,

Could you resend it to my kernel.org address?

Shawn