linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] iio: core: remove iio_validate_own

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: <609fdda9-fcf4-426f-84c8-411a59ed5fab@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:44:15 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] iio: core: remove iio_validate_own_trigger()
 function

On 9/21/24 23:07, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 12:23:39PM -0700, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 9/21/24 11:19, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
>>> The iio_validate_own_trigger() function was added in this commit [1] but it is
>>> the same with the below function called iio_trigger_validate_own_device(). The
>>> bodies of the functions can be found in [2], [3].
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/51cd3e3e74a6addf8d333f4a109fb9c5a11086ee.1683541225.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com/
>>> [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c#L732
>>> [3]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c#L752
>>
>> The signature of the two functions are different, the order of the
>> parameters is switched. So you can't just swap them out for the
>> `validate_trigger` callback since the signature is not compatible. But maybe
>> you can update the implementation of one of the functions to calling the
>> other function.
>>
> 
> Hi Lars,
> 
> Hmm, I see what you mean. Still though, do you think that we could do some
> cleaning here? I can see 3 approaches:
> 
> 1) One of the 2 functions calls the other internally and nothing else has
> to change.

I would go with this. Changing the signatures to be the same would be 
(in my, not always humble enough, opinion) wrong. The different order of 
parameters reflects the different idea. One checks if device for trigger 
is the right one, the other checks if the trigger for the device is the 
right one. Thus, the order of parameters should be different.

Calling the same implementation internally is fine with me. Maybe 
Jonathan will share his opinion when recovers from all the plumbing in 
Vienna ;)

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~