linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: vchiq

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, 14 Jun 2024 13:52:53 +0200
From: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
To: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
 Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
 Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>,
 linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.org>, detule
 <ogjoneski@...il.com>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
 BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 STAGING SUBSYSTEM <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_arm: Fix initialisation
 check

Hi Kieran,

Am 14.06.24 um 13:36 schrieb Kieran Bingham:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Sorry, indeed I completely missed this mail.
>
> Quoting Stefan Wahren (2024-06-13 21:01:42)
>> Hi Kieran,
>>
>> Am 13.06.24 um 21:41 schrieb Kieran Bingham:
>>> The vchiq_state used to be obtained through an accessor
>>> which would validate that the VCHIQ had been initialised
>>> correctly with the remote.
>>>
>>> In commit 42a2f6664e18 ("staging: vc04_services: Move global g_state to
>>> vchiq_state") the global state was moved to the vchiq_mgnt structures
>>> stored as a vchiq instance specific context. This conversion removed the
>>> helpers and instead replaced users of this helper with the assumption
>>> that the state is always available and the remote connected.
>>>
>>> Fix this broken assumption by re-introducing the logic that was lost
>>> during the conversion.
>> thank you for sending this patch. Maybe it's worth to mention that this
>> patch also drop some unnecessary NULL checks of state.
> I don't understand this comment. Nothing is dropped is it?
>
> The newly added vchiq_remote_initialised() is itself a null-check too!
the vchiq_remote_initialised() only checks the member remote, but not
state itself. From my point of view the null-check for state is
unnecessary, because most of the code already assumed that state is not
null like e.g. in vchiq_open().