linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] pci: devres: remove legacy pcim

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: <33b7c1a458df27bfb36ea4f53ef1cc7abc2a4897.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:49:16 +0100
From: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>
To: andy.shevchenko@...il.com
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, 
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard
 <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie
 <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Bjorn Helgaas
 <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, dakr@...hat.com,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,  linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] pci: devres: remove legacy pcim_release()

On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 23:40 +0200, andy.shevchenko@...il.com wrote:
> Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 03:46:20PM +0100, Philipp Stanner kirjoitti:
> > Thanks to preceding cleanup steps, pcim_release() is now not needed
> > anymore and can be replaced by pcim_disable_device(), which is the
> > exact
> > counterpart to pcim_enable_device().
> > This permits removing further parts of the old devres API.
> > 
> > Replace pcim_release() with pcim_disable_device().
> > Remove the now surplus get_dr() function.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +       devm_add_action(&pdev->dev, pcim_disable_device, pdev);
> 
> No error check?
> 
> > +       return pci_enable_device(pdev);
> 
> Maybe
> 
>         ret = pci_enable_device(...);
>         if (ret)
>                 return ret;
> 
>         return devm_add_action_or_reset(...)?
> 
> I could think of side effects of this, so perhaps the commit message
> and/or
> code needs a comment on why the above proposal can _not_ be used?
> 

That proposal can be used, so this was simply a bug.

P.