linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: th1520: Convert to thp->mutex to guarded mutex

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: <ZwHW27ZuZrtBm56q@x1>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 17:16:27 -0700
From: Drew Fustini <dfustini@...storrent.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Drew Fustini <drew@...7.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
	Fu Wei <wefu@...hat.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: th1520: Convert to thp->mutex to guarded
 mutex

On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 09:43:06PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 05/10/2024 à 21:35, Drew Fustini a écrit :
> > Convert th1520_pinctrl_dt_node_to_map() to use guarded mutex for
> > thp->mutex.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <dfustini@...storrent.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-th1520.c | 8 +++-----
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-th1520.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-th1520.c
> > index 9331f4462480..d03a0a34220a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-th1520.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-th1520.c
> > @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static int th1520_pinctrl_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >   	int ret;
> >   	nmaps = 0;
> > -	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > +	for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, child) {
> 
> Using _scoped iterator is not described in the commit message.
> Is it expected to be part of this patch?

Yes, it was intentional, but you are right that I should have
highlighted that. I'll make it a separate patch.

> 
> If yes, the "of_node_put(child);" just a few lines below should be removed.

Thanks, will do.

> 
> >   		int npins = of_property_count_strings(child, "pins");
> >   		if (npins <= 0) {
> > @@ -444,8 +444,8 @@ static int th1520_pinctrl_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >   		return -ENOMEM;
> >   	nmaps = 0;
> > -	mutex_lock(&thp->mutex);
> > -	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > +	guard(mutex)(&thp->mutex);
> > +	for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, child) {
> 
> Same here...
> 
> >   		unsigned int rollback = nmaps;
> >   		enum th1520_muxtype muxtype;
> >   		struct property *prop;
> > @@ -530,7 +530,6 @@ static int th1520_pinctrl_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >   	*maps = map;
> >   	*num_maps = nmaps;
> > -	mutex_unlock(&thp->mutex);
> >   	return 0;
> >   free_configs:
> > @@ -538,7 +537,6 @@ static int th1520_pinctrl_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >   put_child:
> >   	of_node_put(child);
> 
> ... this should be removed, and maybe the label renamed.

Thanks, will do.

Drew