linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 4/7] Input: amimouse - convert to platform remove callback returning void

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZaQuMZFSC4iwntY2@sashalap>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:55:45 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 4/7] Input: amimouse - convert to platform
 remove callback returning void

On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:50:04PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 12:44:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>> >
>> > [ Upstream commit 42b8ff47720258d1f6a4412e780a480c139773a0 ]
>> >
>> > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
>> > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
>> > returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart
>> > from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks.
>> >
>> > To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return
>> > void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to
>> > .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers
>> > are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
>> >
>> > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
>> > callback to the void returning variant.
>>
>> We don't really need this for -stable.
>
>Agreed! These patches shouldn't get backported to stable. Even if they
>are a dependency (which isn't the case for this patch AFAICT),
>backporting of later patches isn't hard even when dropping these
>patches.

I'll drop it, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha