linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] gpiolib: replace find_chip_by_name() with gpio_device_find_by

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: <CAMRc=MfS1J38ij4QjTz2SRxXrmxqqz0mQow_HUuC_0WcHZA8Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:35:28 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] gpiolib: replace find_chip_by_name() with gpio_device_find_by_label()

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > Remove all remaining uses of find_chip_by_name() (and subsequently:
> > gpiochip_find()) from gpiolib.c and use the new
> > gpio_device_find_by_label() instead.
>
> ...
>
> >       for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
> > -             struct gpio_chip *gc;
> > +             struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
>
> > +             gc = gpio_device_get_chip(gdev);
>
> What the heck is this, btw? You have gdev NULL here.
>

Gah! Thanks. I relied on tests succeeding and no KASAN warnings, I
need to go through this line-by-line again.

Bart

> >               /* idx must always match exactly */
> >               if (p->idx != idx)
> > @@ -4004,9 +3996,8 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> >                       return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> >               }
> >
> > -             gc = find_chip_by_name(p->key);
> > -
> > -             if (!gc) {
> > +             gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
> > +             if (!gdev) {
>
> ...
>
> >               if (gc->ngpio <= p->chip_hwnum) {
> >                       dev_err(dev,
> >                               "requested GPIO %u (%u) is out of range [0..%u] for chip %s\n",
> > -                             idx, p->chip_hwnum, gc->ngpio - 1,
> > +                             idx, p->chip_hwnum, gdev->chip->ngpio - 1,
>
> In other patch you use wrapper to get gdev->chip, why not here?
>
> >                               gc->label);
>
> Is this gc is different to gdev->chip?
>
> >                       return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >               }
>
> ...
>
> Sorry, but this patch seems to me as WIP. Please, revisit it, make sure all
> things are done consistently.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>