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: <20240711080557.GI501857@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:05:57 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, 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, Christian Marangi wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 05:55:28PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Hi Lee,
> profoundly sorry for the happening... Obviusly something went wrong in
> me changing branch and the driver wasn't actually compiled in the
> test... 
> 
> Also with the comments from Markus I tought this needed more changes and
> I leaved out for a bit, so again I'm really sorry that this manage to
> reach next.

No worries.

> What is the next step? Any way I can pose a fix on this and apologize for
> the situation?

I'll fix it up and test it.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]