linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: check 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: <2729466.lGaqSPkdTl@n9w6sw14>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:40:34 +0100
From: Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: check that dummy regulator has been probed
 before using it

On Thursday, 13 March 2025, 01:46:43 CET, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:18 AM Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -2213,6 +2221,8 @@ struct regulator *_regulator_get_common(struct regulator_dev *rdev, struct devic
> >                          */
> >                         dev_warn(dev, "supply %s not found, using dummy regulator\n", id);
> >                         rdev = dummy_regulator_rdev;
> > +                       if (!rdev)
> > +                               return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> 
> nit: it feels like the dev_warn() above should be below your new
> check. Otherwise you'll get the same message again after the deferral
> processes.
> 

I actually had a similar feeling during making the change.  Having entropy on warning
messages isn't very nice, so I'll send a v3.

regards
Christian