linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] ACPI: utils: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching

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: <ZTKH6bNPiy1fZKEG@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:00:09 +0300
From:   Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com, robert.moore@...el.com,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        will@...nel.org, linux@...ck-us.net, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@...el.com, bala.senthil@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] ACPI: utils: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for
 matching _UID

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:42:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:38:06PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:17:28PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > Convert manual _UID references to use standard ACPI helpers.
> > > 
> > > Yes, while not so obvious this is the correct replacement.
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > I think this is the only case which would suffer from the more obvious
> > behaviour, i.e.
> 
> No, that's not true. The same with override CPU in the other patch, where the
> check is simply absent, but the result will be the same. So, all with negation
> will suffer from the "obvious" implementation.

Forgot to add, we don't need to change the original acpi_dev_hid_uid_match()
behaviour, i.e.

bool acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev,
                            const char *hid2, const char *uid2)
{
        const char *hid1 = acpi_device_hid(adev);

        if (strcmp(hid1, hid2))
                return false;

        if (!uid2)
                return true;

        return acpi_dev_uid_match(adev, uid2);
}

I'm fine with both, this just makes more sense to me.

Raag