linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2][next] tty: sunsu: Simplify device_node cleanup by using _

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: Fri, 3 May 2024 07:34:25 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Shresth Prasad <shresthprasad7@...il.com>
Cc: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, jirislaby@...nel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2][next] tty: sunsu: Simplify device_node cleanup by
 using __free

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:21:16PM +0530, Shresth Prasad wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 9:35 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 May 2024, Shresth Prasad wrote:
> >
> > > Add `__free` function attribute to `ap` and `match` pointer
> > > initialisations which ensure that the pointers are freed as soon as they
> > > go out of scope, thus removing the need to manually free them using
> > > `of_node_put`.
> > >
> > > This also removes the need for the `goto` statement and the `rc`
> > > variable.
> > >
> > > Tested using a qemu x86_64 virtual machine.
> >
> > Eh, how can you test this with an x86_64 VM ???
> >
> > config SERIAL_SUNSU
> >         tristate "Sun SU serial support"
> >         depends on SPARC && PCI
> >
> 
> By that, I mean that I compiled the kernel and ran the produced bzImage
> on a x86_64 qemu machine.

But you didn't include the driver you were testing :(

> I unfortunately don't have the hardware to test it on, but I don't
> think the change is complex enough to require testing on real hardware
> (unless I'm assuming incorrectly).

That's why I asked if you had tested this or not...