linux-kernel - Re: [v4] irqchip/renesas-rzg2l: Fix missing put

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: <692cabd4-038b-403a-b21e-69a2b0492e57@web.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:38:08 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
 Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
 Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
 Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v4] irqchip/renesas-rzg2l: Fix missing put_device

>>> rzg2l_irqc_common_init calls of_find_device_by_node, but the
>>> corresponding put_device call is missing.
…
>>> Make use of the cleanup interfaces from cleanup.h to call into
>>> __free_put_device (which in turn calls into put_device) when
>>
>> Can it help to influence the understanding of this programming
>> interface by mentioning the usage of a special attribute?
>
> Can you please stop pestering people with incomprehensible word salad?

Which patch review comments would you find more appropriate here?


>>> leaving function rzg2l_irqc_common_init and variable "dev" goes
>>> out of scope.
>>>
>>> Mind that we don't want to "put" "dev" when rzg2l_irqc_common_init
>>> completes successfully, therefore assign NULL to "dev" to prevent
>>> __free_put_device from calling into put_device within the successful
>>> path.
>>
>> Will further software design options become applicable here?
>>
>> Can any pointer type be used for the return value
>> (instead of the data type “int”)?
>
> How is this relevant here?

I imagine that the usage of error pointers can occasionally be helpful
for such programming interfaces.


>>> "make coccicheck" will still complain about missing put_device calls,
>>> but those are false positives now.
>>
>> Would you like to discuss any adjustment possibilities for this
>> development tool?
>
> Would you like to get useful work done insteead of telling everyone what
> to do? There is nothing to discuss.

I got other impressions for corresponding development opportunities.


> But this change fixes a bug and that's it.

Maybe.


> We are not doing cleanups in a bug fix.

Additional adjustments can be offered in subsequent update steps
(within a patch series?).

Regards,
Markus