linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: switch to use device_add

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]

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:34:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc: "Hegde, Suma" <Suma.Hegde@....com>, naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: switch to use
 device_add_groups()

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:50:33PM +0530, Hegde, Suma wrote:
> > On 1/29/2024 6:16 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > + Cc Suma Hegde.
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The use of devm_*() functions works properly for when the device
> > > > structure itself is dynamic, but the hsmp driver is attempting to have a
> > > > local, static, struct device and then calls devm_() functions attaching
> > > > memory to the device that will never be freed.
> > > > 
> > > > The logic of having a static struct device is almost never a wise
> > > > choice, but for now, just remove the use of devm_device_add_groups() in
> > > > this driver as it obviously is not needed.
> > 
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > Could you please hold on merging this patch for a week? I will push a patch
> > for converting platform specific structure's memory allocation from static
> > to a dynamic
> > 
> > allocation.
> 
> Push it where?  Ususally we do "first patch wins" type stuff, why not
> just do your work on top of mine?
> 
> Also, when you do make the needed changes, please remove the explicit
> call to create sysfs groups and use the default groups pointer instead,
> that will make things much simpler and avoid races in the code.

Hi Greg,

Well, if you really want to "win" :-), please provide an updated version 
which considers the changes already made in the for-next branch (the 
current one won't apply).

-- 
 i.