linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq/devres: Simplify API devm_free

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: <07f223e0-9a42-4637-a081-a057025e216f@icloud.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 06:36:58 +0800
From: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/devres: Simplify API devm_free_irq()
 implementation

On 2024/10/18 04:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17 2024 at 23:16, Zijun Hu wrote:
>> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
>>
>> Simplify devm_free_irq() implementation by dedicated API devres_release()
>> which have below advantages than current devres_destroy() + free_irq().
>>
>> It is simpler if devm_free_irq() is undoing what any devm_request_irq()
>> variant did, otherwise, it can avoid wrong and undesired free_irq().
> 
> This is confusing at best. What's the wrong an undesired free_irq()?
> 

thanks for code review.

for current devm_free_irq(..., irq_A, ...):
it is undesired if irq_A is requested by request_irq().
it is wrong and dangerous if irq_A was never requested.

sorry to have confused commit message.
any suggestion to correct it ? (^^)

> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx