linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] of/platform: Propagate firmware node by calling device_set

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: <ZIsnaE95qIJ2DVzK@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:59:52 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] of/platform: Propagate firmware node by calling
 device_set_node()

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Insulate of_device_alloc() and of_amba_device_create() from possible
> changes to fwnode_handle implementation by using device_set_node()
> instead of open-coding dev->dev.fwnode assignments.

Side note. When I preparing this change I have noticed a lot of

	dev_set_name(... dev_name())

in the code which seems to me problematic in two ways:
1) (minor) the dev_set_name() may fail, no checks are there;
2) (major?) the above construction leaks memory.

Is it on purpose (esp. second point)? If no, can it be fixed?
Note, I'm not familiar with OF platform code, so I would help
reviewing the change, but that's it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko