linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: assert that dummy regulator has been probed before using it

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1a64b191-b043-49f7-969c-f807b6a174a3@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:39:06 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Christian Eggers <ceggers@....de>
Cc: Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: assert that dummy regulator has been
 probed before using it

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 07:22:24PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> Am Montag, 10. März 2025, 18:23:02 CET schrieb Mark Brown:

> > > +		BUG_ON(!r);

> > This doesn't actually help anything

> My idea was to help identifying the problem (if it is reintroduced again 
> later).

> > I'd expect this to trigger probe deferral.

> I can check for this tomorrow.  But is it worth to use deferred probing
> for a shared "NOP" driver which doesn't access any hardware?  Or would this 
> only introduce overhead for nothing?

My concern is that if something goes wrong in production then we've just
escallated the problem, given that there's a clear error handling
mechanism we could use we should take advantage of that rather than
doing something destructive.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)