linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 29/33] hwmon: (it87) Check the it87

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: <9f0cdbde-957c-44a6-a7ce-d3d412ecfbb4@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:59 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Frank Crawford <frank@...wford.emu.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 29/33] hwmon: (it87) Check the it87_lock() return
 value

On 2/6/25 09:51, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Return early in it87_resume() if it87_lock() fails instead of ignoring the
> return value of that function. This patch suppresses a Clang thread-safety
> warning.
> 
> Cc: Frank Crawford <frank@...wford.emu.id.au>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> Fixes: 376e1a937b30 ("hwmon: (it87) Add calls to smbus_enable/smbus_disable as required")
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
> ---
>   drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> index e233aafa8856..8e3935089fca 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> @@ -3593,7 +3593,9 @@ static int it87_resume(struct device *dev)
>   
>   	it87_resume_sio(pdev);
>   
> -	it87_lock(data);
> +	int err = it87_lock(data);

I am not going to accept patches with inline variable declarations
if the patch is fixing an earlier problem, sorry. This only results
in unnecessary backport failures.

Guenter