linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: glink: use device_for_each_child_node

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:43:55 +0200
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: glink: use
 device_for_each_child_node_scoped()

On 27/06/2024 16:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 12:35:11PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>> Use the scoped variant of `device_for_each_child_node()` to
>> automatically handle early exits.
>>
>> This prevents memory leaks if new error paths are introduced,
>> as no explicit refcount decrement via `fwnode_handle_put()` is needed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
>> ---
>> This patch is a follow-up to the recently introduced commit c68942624e25
>> ("usb: typec: ucsi: glink: fix child node release in probe function")
>> to account for a safer approach to iterating over child nodes.
> 
> What branch/tree is this against?  It fails to apply to my usb-testing
> branch at all :(
> 
> Can you rebase and resubmit?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Hi, for this to apply you need the commit c68942624e25 ("usb: typec:
ucsi: glink: fix child node release in probe function"), which still
uses a non-scoped macro to account for stable kernels. I mentioned it
under the --- separator, but maybe that is not the way to go.

This patch is a follow-up to use the scoped variant and avoid more bugs
when new early exits are added.

I thought the other patch had already been applied, but apparently not
to usb-testing (I used linux-next as basis, the base-commit can be found
below the patch).

Could you please apply the other patch first? If for whatever reason
that is not desired, I could resend both patches as a series to avoid
that one goes unnoticed, but as I said, the first one is already in
linux-next.

Best regards,
Javier Carrasco