linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] leds: is31fl319x: Wrap mutex_destroy() for devm_add_action_or

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: <Y6wV9afM+aDBxapQ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:09:57 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Vincent Knecht <vincent.knecht@...loo.org>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] leds: is31fl319x: Wrap mutex_destroy() for
 devm_add_action_or_rest()

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:32:38AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Clang complains that devm_add_action() takes a parameter with a wrong type:
> 
> warning: cast from 'void (*)(struct mutex *)' to 'void (*)(void *)' converts to incompatible function type [-Wcast-function-type-strict]
>     err = devm_add_action(dev, (void (*)(void *))mutex_destroy, &is31->lock);
>                                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     1 warning generated.
> 
> It appears that the commit e1af5c815586 ("leds: is31fl319x: Fix devm vs.
> non-devm ordering") missed two things:
> - while mention devm_add_action_or_reset() the actual change got
>   devm_add_action() call by unknown reason
> - strictly speaking the parameter is not compatible by type
> 
> Fix both issues by switching to devm_add_action_or_reset() and adding a
> wrapper for mutex_destroy() call.

This should be read as v2 actually (but code wise the v1 and v2 has no difference).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko