linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] pinctrl: intel: 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: <ZTaGaDweYpBlxBez@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:42:48 +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, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
        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 v2 2/6] pinctrl: intel: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for
 matching _UID

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:35:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:05:26AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Convert manual _UID references to use the standard ACPI helper.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> It has a hidden logic that is not aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match().
> Or revert to your v1 I assume.

I don't see how this has to be aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() or
if acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() implementation concerns this specific change,
since that's not what we intend to do here.

Also, I think acpi_dev_uid_match() implementation in v2 is actually more
aligned with the previous logic that we're replacing here, since it gives
us a guaranteed match result as originally intended with strcmp in this
case. And the "hidden logic" in v1 implementation (match with @uid2 == NULL)
is what ends up breaking it in my opinion.

Regardless, for any version (v1 or v2) the usage still remains the same
in this case.

> As I asked you, please drop this one.

But okay, as you wish :(

Rafael, should I send a v3 with dropped tags?

Raag