linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: gxp: removed unneeded call to platform_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: <CAH3L5Qrzk-7WoF8+GKMYS40Dj_fxGpiLrTvVB_PJdA_VZVsDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:38:27 +0300
From:   Alexandru Ardelean <alex@...uggie.ro>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        nick.hawkins@....com, verdun@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: gxp: removed unneeded call to platform_set_drvdata()

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:27 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:02:17PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote:
>
> > This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent
> > platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also,
> > the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being
> > accessed outside of this driver file.
>
> That isn't enough of a check here - people can still reference the
> driver data without going through the accessor function.

So, is that like calling `platform_get_drvdata()` in a parent/chid
device, to check if the driver-data is set?
Would it make sense for another driver to do that (i.e. check the
driver-data is non-null, but not access the data)?
I can imagine that being possible, but it's a bit quirky.

Or, is the issue with the wording of the comment?