linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpio: mockup: pass the chip label as device property

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, 28 Sep 2020 19:24:04 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpio: mockup: pass the chip label as device
 property

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 4:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:41:53PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > how do you avoid overflow?
> > >
> > > I renamed the property, the previous "chip-name" is no longer used. In
> > > fact it was never used but was accounted for in GPIO_MOCKUP_MAX_PROP.
> >
> > Either I'm missing something or...
> >
> > Current code in linux-next has 3 properties to be possible
> >
> > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("gpio-base", base);
> > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U16("nr-gpios", ngpio);
> > PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("named-gpio-lines");
> >
> > You adding here
> > PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("chip-label", chip_label);
> >
> > Altogether after this patch is 4 which is maximum, but since array is passed by
> > a solely pointer, the terminator is a must.
> >
> 
> Thanks for explaining my code to me. Yes you're right and I'm not sure
> why I missed this. :)
> 
> I'll fix this in v3.
> 
> Actually this means the code is wrong even before this series - it's
> just that we don't use the "chip-name" property.

Right, you patch just exposed it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko