linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] device property: add index argument to property_read_string

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: <20220405152702.50ba516d@fixe.home>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:27:02 +0200
From:   Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] device property: add index argument to
 property_read_string_array() callback

Le Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:22:51 +0200,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> a écrit :

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:29 PM Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:30:45 +0200,
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :
> >  
> > > >     pointer = property_entry_find(props, propname, length);
> > > >     if (IS_ERR(pointer))
> > > >             return PTR_ERR(pointer);  
> > >  
> > > > +   if (index >= array_len)
> > > > +           return -ENODATA;  
> > >
> > > I was about to ask if we can check this before the
> > > property_entry_find() call, but realized that in such case it will
> > > shadow possible errors due to wrong or absent property.  
> >
> > I think you are actually right, the check can be done after
> > property_entry_count_elems_of_size() since it already checks for the
> > property to be present. I'll move that check.
> >  
> > >
> > > ...
> > >  
> > > > -           of_property_read_string_array(node, propname, val,
> > > > nval) :
> > > > +           of_property_read_string_array_index(node,
> > > > propname, val, nval,
> > > > +                                               index) :  
> > >
> > > Dunno about the style there, but I think it can be one line.  
> >
> > Seems like the complete file is strictly applying the 80 columns rules
> > so I thought it was better to keep it like this. However, I think the
> > ternary oeprator is not really readable with such split.  
> 
> So FWIW I would entirely change it to
> 
> if (!val)
>         return of_property_count_strings(node, propname);
> 
> return of_property_read_string_array_index(node, propname, val,
> 
> nval, index);
> 
> which IMO would be way easier to read.

Hi Rafael,

Agreed, this is way more readable. I'll modify that.

Thanks,

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