| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20250529124929.5217c6d9@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 12:49:29 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Hans Verkuil
<hverkuil@...all.nl>, Jai Luthra <jai.luthra@...asonboard.com>, Linux
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Tomi Valkeinen
<tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>, Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the i2c tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:30:52 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:22:00 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:49:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > >
> > > between commits:
> > >
> > > 3ec29d51b546 ("media: i2c: ds90ub960: Protect alias_use_mask with a mutex")
> > > 818bd489f137 ("i2c: use client addresses directly in ATR interface")
> > >
> > > from the i2c tree and commits:
> > >
> > > 24868501a744 ("media: i2c: ds90ub9xx: Add err parameter to read/write funcs")
> > > 2ca499384e98 ("media: i2c: ds90ub960: Add RX port iteration support")
> > >
> > > from the v4l-dvb tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > > complex conflicts.
> >
> > The actual resolution is below ...
>
> I hit the wrong key :-( Resolution below.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> index 5a4d5de110bd,1877eb735cc7..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> @@@ -1056,11 -1271,10 +1274,12 @@@ static int ub960_atr_attach_addr(struc
> struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[chan_id];
> struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
> unsigned int reg_idx;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> - for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_clients); reg_idx++) {
> - if (!rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx])
> + guard(mutex)(&rxport->aliased_addrs_lock);
> +
> + for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_addrs); reg_idx++) {
> + if (!rxport->aliased_addrs[reg_idx])
> break;
> }
>
> @@@ -1069,15 -1283,18 +1288,18 @@@
> return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
> }
>
> - rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx] = client;
> + rxport->aliased_addrs[reg_idx] = addr;
>
> ub960_rxport_write(priv, chan_id, UB960_RR_SLAVE_ID(reg_idx),
> - addr << 1);
> - client->addr << 1, &ret);
> ++ addr << 1, &ret);
> ub960_rxport_write(priv, chan_id, UB960_RR_SLAVE_ALIAS(reg_idx),
> - alias << 1);
> + alias << 1, &ret);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "rx%u: client 0x%02x assigned alias 0x%02x at slot %u\n",
> - rxport->nport, client->addr, alias, reg_idx);
> + rxport->nport, addr, alias, reg_idx);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@@ -1089,11 -1306,10 +1311,12 @@@ static void ub960_atr_detach_addr(struc
> struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[chan_id];
> struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
> unsigned int reg_idx;
> + int ret;
>
> - for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_clients); reg_idx++) {
> - if (rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx] == client)
> + guard(mutex)(&rxport->aliased_addrs_lock);
> +
> + for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_addrs); reg_idx++) {
> + if (rxport->aliased_addrs[reg_idx] == addr)
> break;
> }
>
> @@@ -1103,12 -1319,18 +1326,18 @@@
> return;
> }
>
> - rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx] = NULL;
> + rxport->aliased_addrs[reg_idx] = 0;
>
> - ub960_rxport_write(priv, chan_id, UB960_RR_SLAVE_ALIAS(reg_idx), 0);
> + ret = ub960_rxport_write(priv, chan_id, UB960_RR_SLAVE_ALIAS(reg_idx),
> + 0, NULL);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: unable to fully unmap client 0x%02x: %d\n",
> - rxport->nport, client->addr, ret);
> ++ rxport->nport, addr, ret);
> + return;
> + }
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "rx%u: client 0x%02x released at slot %u\n", rxport->nport,
> - client->addr, reg_idx);
> + addr, reg_idx);
> }
>
> static const struct i2c_atr_ops ub960_atr_ops = {
> @@@ -3231,21 -4370,12 +4376,14 @@@ static void ub960_txport_free_ports(str
>
> static void ub960_rxport_free_ports(struct ub960_data *priv)
> {
> - unsigned int nport;
> + for_each_active_rxport(priv, it) {
> + fwnode_handle_put(it.rxport->source.ep_fwnode);
> + fwnode_handle_put(it.rxport->ser.fwnode);
>
> - for (nport = 0; nport < priv->hw_data->num_rxports; nport++) {
> - struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport];
> ++ mutex_destroy(&it.rxport->aliased_addrs_lock);
> +
> - if (!rxport)
> - continue;
> -
> - fwnode_handle_put(rxport->source.ep_fwnode);
> - fwnode_handle_put(rxport->ser.fwnode);
> -
> - mutex_destroy(&rxport->aliased_addrs_lock);
> -
> - kfree(rxport);
> - priv->rxports[nport] = NULL;
> + kfree(it.rxport);
> + priv->rxports[it.nport] = NULL;
> }
> }
This is now a conflict between the i2c tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists