linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] of: dynamic: Move dead property list check into property add/update functions

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:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:37:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] of: dynamic: Move dead property list check into
 property add/update functions

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:41:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> The changeset code checks for a property in the deadprops list when
> adding/updating a property, but of_add_property() and
> of_update_property() do not. As the users of these functions are pretty
> simple, they have not hit this scenario or else the property lists
> would get corrupted.

Suggested-by: ? :-)

...

> +static void __of_remove_dead_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop)
> +{
> +	struct property **next;
> +
> +	/* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */
> +	for (next = &np->deadprops; *next; next = &(*next)->next) {
> +		if (*next != prop)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		*next = prop->next;
> +		prop->next = NULL;
> +		break;

Why not

		if (*next == prop) {
			*next = prop->next;
			prop->next = NULL;
			break;
		}

which seems to me clearer?

> +	}
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko