linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: ath79: Add missing check for platform_get

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230607070819.48553-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Date:   Wed,  7 Jun 2023 15:08:19 +0800
From:   Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
To:     andy.shevchenko@...il.com
Cc:     oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        brgl@...ev.pl, palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: ath79: Add missing check for platform_get_irq

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:46:36 +0800 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:28:17PM +0300, andy.shevchenko@...il.com kirjoitti:
>> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:18:41AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang kirjoitti:
>> 
>> Is this v4?
>>

I will submit a v4.
 
>> > Add the missing check for platform_get_irq() and return error
>> > if it fails.
>> > The returned error code will be dealed with in
>> > module_platform_driver(ath79_gpio_driver) and the driver will not
>> > be registered.
>> 
>> No, this functional change and has not to be for the fixes unless _this_ is the
>> regression you are fixing. Did the driver work before at some point as after
>> this change?

I will remove the fixes tag in v4.

> 
> To be more clear, answer to the following questions:
> 1) does driver work with wrong DT configuration?
> 2a) if yes, does it make sense, i.e. the hardware functioning usefully?
> 2b) if yes, can we guarantee there are no broken configurations in the wild?
> 
> Depending on the answers correct your code and/or commit message.
> 
>> Otherwise you have to _justify_ that this functional change won't break
>> existing setups (with broked IRQ in Device Tree, for example).

Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean.
I have no idea how these questions are related to my patch.
Do you mean I should not fail the ->probe() if there is wrong IRQ numbering in the DT?
Please tell me the relationship between these questions and my patch.

Thanks,
Jiasheng