linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix check for missing clock

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: <YCE6qwwJngcZMjmn@lunn.ch>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:20:43 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
Cc:     Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe@...libre.com>,
        Ondrej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix check for missing clock

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 12:31:34AM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On 2/8/21 12:28 AM, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > In commit e5c02cf54154 ("i2c: mv64xxx: Add runtime PM support"), error
> > pointers to optional clocks were replaced by NULL to simplify the resume
> > callback implementation. However, that commit missed that the IS_ERR
> > check in mv64xxx_of_config should be replaced with a NULL check. As a
> > result, the check always passes, even for an invalid device tree.
> 
> Sorry, please ignore this unrelated patch. I accidentally copied it to
> the wrong directory before sending this series.

Hi Samuel

This patch looks correct. But i don't see it in i2c/for-next, where as
e5c02cf54154 is. I just want to make sure it does not get lost...

	     Andrew