linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 7/9] firmware: qcom: scm: Fix _

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: <n2gomlmlzwodpg2v3gzuc62n3plewdqgiwctrv2tawdih26rig@obqd2a2ovqvp>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:25:45 -0600
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 7/9] firmware: qcom: scm: Fix __scm->dev assignement

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:23:06PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> qcom_scm_is_available() gives wrong indication if __scm
> is initialized but __scm->dev is not.
> 
> Fix this appropriately by making sure if __scm is
> initialized and then it is associated with its
> device.
> 

This seems like a bug fix, and should as such have a Fixes: tag and
probably Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org

> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> index 6c252cddd44e..6f14254c0c10 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> @@ -1859,6 +1859,7 @@ static int qcom_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!scm)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	scm->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	ret = qcom_scm_find_dload_address(&pdev->dev, &scm->dload_mode_addr);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
> @@ -1895,7 +1896,6 @@ static int qcom_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	__scm = scm;
> -	__scm->dev = &pdev->dev;

Is it sufficient to just move the line up, or do we need a barrier of
some sort here?

Regards,
Bjorn

>  
>  	init_completion(&__scm->waitq_comp);
>  
> -- 
> 2.43.0.254.ga26002b62827
>