linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] device property: Constify fwnode_handle

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:35:46 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] device property: Constify fwnode_handle_get()

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 05:10:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:35 AM Sakari Ailus
> <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:48:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > As to_of_node() suggests and the way the code in the OF and software node
> > > back ends actually uses the fwnode handle, it may be constified. Do this
> > > for good.
> >
> > How?
> >
> > If the fwnode is const, then the struct it contains must be presumed to be
> > const, too.
> 
> Why? The idea is that we are not updating the fwnode, but the container.
> The container may or may not be const. It's orthogonal, no?

As you wrote: may or may not. The stricter requirement, i.e. const, must be
thus followed. I think it would be fine (after adding a comment on what is
being done) if you *know* the container struct is not const. But that is
not the case here.

-- 
Sakari Ailus