linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: set numa_node before platform_add

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, 12 Sep 2023 10:11:49 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "guojinhui.liam" <guojinhui.liam@...edance.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: set numa_node before
 platform_add_device()

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:09:00PM +0800, guojinhui.liam wrote:
> platform_add_device creates numa_node attribute of sysfs according to
> whether dev_to_node(dev) is equal to NUMA_NO_NODE. So set the numa node
> of the device before creating numa_node attribute of sysfs.

Why?  What will this allow to happen differently?  What is broken with
the current code?

> Fixes: 4a60406d3592 ("driver core: platform: expose numa_node to users in sysfs")
> Signed-off-by: guojinhui.liam <guojinhui.liam@...edance.com>

Please use your name here, and not your email alias, as the first part
of the signed-off-by line.

And also, please fix up your email client to have the correct name as
well.

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 4 +---
>  drivers/base/platform.c      | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> index 48d15dd785f6..adcbfbdc343f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> @@ -178,11 +178,9 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev,
>  	if (IS_ERR(pdev))
>  		dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n",
>  			PTR_ERR(pdev));
> -	else {
> -		set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
> +	else
>  		dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "created platform device %s\n",
>  			dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> -	}
>  
>  	kfree(resources);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index 76bfcba25003..355abf91930a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct platform_device *pdev;
> +	struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device_node(pdevinfo->fwnode);
>  
>  	pdev = platform_device_alloc(pdevinfo->name, pdevinfo->id);
>  	if (!pdev)
> @@ -841,6 +842,9 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
>  			goto err;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (adev)
> +		set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));

Are you sure that this platform code can always call acpi functions?

thanks,

greg k-h