linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] intel_th: 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 20:50:32 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Greg
 Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] intel_th: Convert to platform remove callback
 returning void

Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> writes:

> Hello Greg,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:16:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 09:28:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>> > 
>> > I didn't get any feedback to this patch and it didn't make it into next
>> > up to now.
>> > 
>> > Is this still on someone's radar?
>> 
>> Is there a chance to get this patch into v6.9-rc1? Are you the right one
>> to talk to about this patch? (According to MAINTAINERS you are.)
>> 
>> The patch was sent during the 6.7 merge window and now already missed
>> the 6.8 one :-\
>
> I failed in several attempts to get feedback on this patch. You applied
> the last two patches for this driver (that is all patches since the
> driver was born). Would you care for that one, too? Tell me if you want
> a resend. Note that the other 7 patches from this series are already
> cared for, so if you're using b4 am or shazam, make use of -P7.

Apologies. This looks good to me, I will pick it up for my next
submission to Greg unless somebody objects.

Regards,
--
Alex