linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v6.6

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:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:29:11 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v6.6

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 04:43, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> Driver improvements:
> - use autopointers and guards from cleanup.h in gpio-sim

So I've pulled this, but I'm not entirely convinced some of this was a cleanup.

That gpio_sim_config_make_device_group() change is "interesting". Doing

        return &no_free_ptr(dev)->group;

looks a bit crazy. My first reaction to it was 'that can't be right".
It _is_ right, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of one kfree()
call in the error path above it is worth that kind of semantic
complexity.

I guess we'll get more used to this - and it will look a bit less
crazy in the process - but I did want to just note that I'm not
entirely convinced we should encourage things like this.

              Linus