linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] driver core: add helper for deferred probe reason setting

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: <CAHp75Ves0+oebnSSYNNb=DcAuiN6-BFwp4jyDD9pSeg6FX2HKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:16:32 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] driver core: add helper for deferred probe reason setting

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On 19.03.21 12:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> We now have three places within the same file doing the same operation
> >> of freeing this pointer and setting it anew. A helper make this
> >
> > makes
> >
> >> arguably easier to read, so add one.
> >
> > FWIW,
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
>
> Thanks will add for v3.
>
> > Now I'm wondering why deferred_probe_reason is not defined with const.
> >
> > Can you check and maybe squeeze a patch in the middle (before these
> > two of this series) to move to const?
>
> The deferred_probe_reason is only used in this file and it either holds
> NULL or a pointer to a dynamically allocated string. I don't see a reason
> why the member should be const.

But we want to be reliant on the contents of the string, right?
I would put this why it shouldn't be const.

As far as I understand the strictness here is for good.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko