linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:18:25 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To:     Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
        robh@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, pmladek@...e.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
        tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, bingbu.cao@...el.com,
        sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, yong.zhi@...el.com,
        rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kitakar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing
 software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows

Hi Daniel,

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:28:07PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
...
> >> +int cio2_bridge_build(struct pci_dev *cio2)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	pci_dev_get(cio2);
> > Could you check that this isn't used by more than one user? The current
> > implementation assumes that. I'm not sure if there could be more instances
> > of CIO2 but if there were, that'd be an issue currently.
> 
> I can check; can't think of anything better than just failing out if it
> turns out to be in use already though - any ideas or is that appropriate?

A negative error code would be appropriate, e.g. -EBUSY.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus