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: <CAD=FV=Udsw=XCR204A8QGwVSAxyprLCrrOgmZf+pU+8m-7sQ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:52:22 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: neil.armstrong@...aro.org
Cc: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>, 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

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:34 AM <neil.armstrong@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Well, they're both fixes, and inverting them means that you get a
compile failure across several panels if you happen to be bisecting
and land on the first commit, but it doesn't really matter. I guess
the compile failure is maybe a benefit given that they were not doing
their delays properly... ;-)

-Doug