linux-kernel - Re: Linux logs new warning `gpio gpiochip0: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: get

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: <CACMJSevxA8pC2NTQq3jcKCog+o02Y07gVgQydo19YjC9+5Gs6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:14:24 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, brgl@...ev.pl, 
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, 
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Linux logs new warning `gpio gpiochip0: gpiochip_add_data_with_key:
 get_direction failed: -22`

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 14:47, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:37:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:51 AM <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any case: Linus: what should be our policy here? There are some pinctrl
> > > > drivers which return EINVAL if the pin in question is not in GPIO mode. I don't
> > > > think this is an error. Returning errors should be reserved for read failures
> > > > and so on. Are you fine with changing the logic here to explicitly default to
> > > > INPUT as until recently all errors would be interpreted as such anyway?
> > >
> > > Oh hm I guess. There was no defined semantic until now anyway. Maybe
> > > Andy has something to say about it though, it's very much his pin controller.
> >
> > Driver is doing correct things. If you want to be pedantic, we need to return
> > all possible pin states (which are currently absent from GPIO get_direction()
> > perspective) and even though it's not possible to tell from the pin muxer
> > p.o.v. If function is I2C, it's open-drain, if some other, it may be completely
> > different, but pin muxer might only guesstimate the state of the particular
> > function is and I do not think guesstimation is a right approach.
> >
> > We may use the specific error code, though. and document that semantics.
>
> Brief looking at the error descriptions and the practical use the best (and
> unique enough) choice may be EBADSLT.
>

In any case, I proposed to revert to the previous behavior in
gpiochip_add_data() in my follow-up series so the issue should soon go
away.

Bart