linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpio: mpc8xxx: Fix 3 errors related to the error handling path of the 'mpc8xxx

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: <CAMpxmJXO595xXbyG4fnc1ckadPOt4d0SXJ8qD7KuSP1XP5dFzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:06:43 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        alexandru.marginean@....com, Laurentiu.Tudor@....com,
        Hui Song <hui.song_1@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Ran Wang <ran.wang_1@....com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpio: mpc8xxx: Fix 3 errors related to the error
 handling path of the 'mpc8xxx_probe()'

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 5:37 PM Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>
> This has been split in 3 patches because:
>   - the root issue of patch 1 and 3 is not the same commit as the one for patch 2.
>   - the strategy to fix the issues is not the same
>      - patch 1: add a new call in the rror handling path
>      - patch 3: switch to a resource managed function
>
> They could be merged together if easier to review. The subject would then be
> something like "gpio: mpc8xxx: Fix the error handling path of 'mpc8xxx_probe()'"
>
> If prefered, 'devm_add_action_or_reset()' could be used to switch the probe to
> a fully managed resource function and remove the 'remove' function.
> That's mostly a matter of taste.
>
> If such an option is preferred, I'm a bit puzzled by the
> 'irq_set_chained_handler_and_data()' call in the remove function because I
> don't see why it is there.
> Also see the comment at the end of patch 1 also related to this function call.
>
>
> Christophe JAILLET (3):
>   gpio: mpc8xxx: Fix a resources leak in the error handling path of
>     'mpc8xxx_probe()'
>   gpio: mpc8xxx: Fix a potential double iounmap call in
>     'mpc8xxx_probe()'
>   gpio: mpc8xxx: Use 'devm_gpiochip_add_data()' to simplify the code and
>     avoid a leak
>
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-mpc8xxx.c | 13 +++++--------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Hi Christophe,

These look good but I'm leaving for a couple days in an hour so I
won't be able to send a PR to Linus before the next release. I'll make
these part of my regular PR for the upcoming merge window.

Bart