linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: mvpp2: use device_for_each_child

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]

Message-ID: <ZqeSdMMOk+GbVzHj@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:00:36 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Marcin Wojtas <marcin.s.wojtas@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: mvpp2: use device_for_each_child_node() to
 access device child nodes

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> Apart from that, there is a suspicious check towards the end of the same
> function:
> 
>  if (is_acpi_node(port_fwnode))
> 		return;
> 
> At the point it is called in the current implementation, port_fwnode
> could have been cleaned. And after removing the loop, it is simply
> uninitialized. Was that meant to be pdev->dev->fwnode?

If you're referring to the one before the clk_disable_unprepare() calls,
it's only slightly suspicious:

These clocks are setup in a:

        if (dev_of_node(&pdev->dev)) {
		...
	}

block, so they're only setup if we have device tree. So, avoiding it
for ACPI is entirely reasonable. However, we also have software nodes
as well, so the test should be:

	if (!dev_of_node(&pdev->dev))
		return;

to match what the probe function is doing.

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!