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: <20240922110721.GA439861@vamoiridPC>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:07:21 +0200
From: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, 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 Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 12:44:15PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 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
> 

Hi Matti!

Thanks for your comment! Well, I still think in my eyes is better to
have one function do one thing instead of multiple. Also, I didn't
think of this argument with the order of arguments, it makes sense.
My experience is quite limited to how things should be in such a
large project so I trust your opinion. I would still like to see
what Jonathan has to say on this though, maybe he had some
reasoning behind!!!

Have a nice day!

Cheers,
Vasilis