linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] reset: add support for fwnode

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: <20220324101929.00f51f01@fixe.home>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:19:29 +0100
From:   Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] reset: add support for fwnode

Le Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:21:21 +0100,
Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> a écrit :

> > >         if (id) {
> > > -               index = of_property_match_string(node,
> > > -                                                "reset-names", id);
> > > +               index = fwnode_property_match_string(fwnode, "reset-names", id);
> > >                 if (index == -EILSEQ)
> > >                         return ERR_PTR(index);    
> > 
> > I don't think this is good enough any more. At least -ENOMEM is added
> > as a possible error return code by this change.  
> 
> Yes indeed, errors are clearly not correctly handled anymore. At least
> -EILSEQ won't be triggered.
> > 

By the way, even after looking at this more carefully, I'm not sure to
understand why there is a special handling for -EILSEQ ? From what I
understand, EILSEQ is returned in case the device tree is malformed
(string longer than returned property length) but why is it handled
differently in this case ?

Thanks,

-- 
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com