linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] gpiolib: provide 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: <ZRQyqw/YWbSeQcJc@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:48:27 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
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 v3 04/11] gpiolib: provide gpio_device_find_by_label()

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 02:42:28PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 2:33 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 01:22:36PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>

...

> > > > > +static int gpio_chip_match_by_label(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *label)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     return gc->label && !strcmp(gc->label, label);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > I am still wondering if we can oblige providers to have label to be non-empty.
> > >
> > > Of course we can. Just bail out of gpiochip_add_data_with_key() if it
> > > is. But that's material for a different patch.
> >
> > Yes, but my point here is that
> > 1) the current users are already following this requirement;
> > 2) the enforcement can be done explicitly somewhere (in the register function).
> >
> > Is the 1) incorrect assumption?
> 
> I remember doing a quick glance over GPIO providers and it looks like
> ALL of them set the label. But I may have missed something. I would
> start with a warning.

For now I would drop the NULL check. We will have a few weeks to see
if somebody screams about. Meanwhile we can add the real error message
patch if no-one complains.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko