linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pwm: core: use device_match_name() instead of strcmp(dev

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zxup7PnsWFTABBqN@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:23:40 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pwm: core: use device_match_name() instead of
 strcmp(dev_name(...

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 04:17:04PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 04:04:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 06:19:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > >  	idr_for_each_entry_ul(&pwm_chips, chip, tmp, id) {
> > > > -		const char *chip_name = dev_name(pwmchip_parent(chip));
> > > > -
> > > > -		if (chip_name && strcmp(chip_name, name) == 0)
> > > > +		if (device_match_name(pwmchip_parent(chip), name))
> > > 
> > > This theoretically changes behaviour in a few cases. For example if
> > > dev_name(pwmchip_parent(chip)) is NULL the new code would crash. Can
> > > this happen? 
> > 
> > Please, tell me how
> > (looking at the of device_add() and kobject_set_name_vargs() implementations)?
> 
> This is unfair, I intended to let you do the work and you just give it
> back to me :-)

Unfair to ask me about this code as you should know better as the maintainer
than me why this code is there, no? :-)

> ... a bit later ...
> 
> ok, willing to merge if you update the commit log to mention that the
> theoretical changes (no check for NULL, more lax check (trailing \n))
> don't matter.

Okay.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko