linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] leds: leds-lp55xx: Convert mutex lock/unlock to guard API

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: <20240710165528.GH501857@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:55:28 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] leds: leds-lp55xx: Convert mutex lock/unlock to
 guard API

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:

> …
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp5521.c
> …
> > @@ -185,9 +186,9 @@ static ssize_t lp5521_selftest(struct device *dev,
> >  	struct lp55xx_chip *chip = led->chip;
> >  	int ret;
> >
> > -	mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > +	guard(mutex, &chip->lock);
> 
> How did you come to the conclusion to try such a syntax variant out?
> 
> Would the following statement (with additional parentheses) be more appropriate?
> 
> 	guard(mutex)(&chip->lock);

Yes, that's the fix.

I'm more concerned with how untested patches came to being submitted.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]