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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:00:19 +0100
From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>, Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>, 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

Quoting Stefan Wahren (2024-06-14 12:52:53)
> 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().
> 

aha, I misread my own code ;-) Of course - I see it now.

I'll send v3.

--
Kieran