linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/mipi-dsi: fix handling of ctx in mipi_dsi

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: <9beb8011-cb0f-4694-87e7-d4c02de80cd8@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:34:13 +0200
From: neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
 Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
Cc: quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
 mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
 linus.walleij@...aro.org, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/mipi-dsi: fix handling of ctx in mipi_dsi_msleep

On 12/06/2024 16:21, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:37 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> ctx would be better off treated as a pointer to account for most of its
>> usage so far, and brackets should be added to account for operator
>> precedence for correct evaluation.
>>
>> Fixes: f79d6d28d8fe7 ("drm/mipi-dsi: wrap more functions for streamline handling")
>> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Yeah. Looking closer at the history, it looks like it was always
> intended to be a pointer since the first users all used it as a
> pointer.
> 
> Suggested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> 
> I've also compile-tested all the panels currently using mipi_dsi_msleep().
> 
> Neil: Given that this is a correctness thing, I'd rather see this land
> sooner rather than later. If you agree, maybe you can land these two
> patches whenever you're comfortable with them?

Applying them, but inverting them, fix should go first.

Neil

> 
> 
> -Doug