linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/23] gpio: reduce the functionality of validate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:30:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/23] gpio: reduce the functionality of
 validate_desc()

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:22:23PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:34:12AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

..

> > >  void gpiod_free(struct gpio_desc *desc)
> > >  {
> > > -     /*
> > > -      * We must not use VALIDATE_DESC_VOID() as the underlying gdev->chip
> > > -      * may already be NULL but we still want to put the references.
> > > -      */
> > > -     if (!desc)
> > > -             return;
> > > +     VALIDATE_DESC_VOID(desc);
> >
> > IIRC we (used to) have two cases like this (you added one in some code like
> > last year).
> >
> 
> None of the consumer-facing functions does it anymore. Not sure about
> this, maybe it was removed earlier.

Okay, the only place that might be considered is gpiod_to_gpio_device().

But that API seems new, I don't know if VALIDATE_DESC_VOID() is okay to use there,
maybe it should be commented if not. Also there is a typo in the kernel doc —
'the users already holds' --> 'the user already holds'.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko