linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ACPI: bus: Introduce acpi_dev

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: <CAHp75VeW7w-tX96B8Gh=E1meTHLzuocqaM2MTLyokc5hETVj7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:47:38 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ACPI: bus: Introduce acpi_dev_get() and reuse it
 in ACPI code

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:32 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

...

> >  static void get_acpi_device(void *dev)
> >  {
> > -       if (dev)
> > -               get_device(&((struct acpi_device *)dev)->dev);
> > +       acpi_dev_get(dev);
>
> I would do
>
> if (dev)
>     acpi_dev_get(dev);
>
> here.

Hmm... I don't see a point. acpi_dev_get() guaranteed to perform this check.

> >  }


> > +static inline void acpi_dev_get(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > +{
> > +       if (adev)
> > +               get_device(&adev->dev);
>
> And I would drop the adev check from here (because the code calling it
> may be running with wrong assumptions if adev is NULL).  Or it should
> return adev and the caller should be held responsible for checking it
> against NULL (if they care).

But this follows the get_device() / put_device() logic. Personally I
don't think this is a good idea to deviate. Note the
acpi_bus_get_acpi_device() / acpi_bus_put_acpi_device() as well.

> > +}



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko