linux-kernel - Re: (subset) [PATCH v7 2/3] leds: lp8860: Check return value of devm_mutex

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: <e340b32d-8839-43b0-8662-edef1729ad6e@t-8ch.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:54:11 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Vicentiu Galanopulo <vicentiu.galanopulo@...ote-tech.co.uk>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Han Xu <han.xu@....com>, 
	Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>, Yogesh Gaur <yogeshgaur.83@...il.com>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, 
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v7 2/3] leds: lp8860: Check return value of
 devm_mutex_init()

On 2025-06-25 10:04:39+0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2025-06-19 13:34:56+0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:08:13 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > devm_mutex_init() can fail. With CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y the mutex will be
> > > > marked as unusable and trigger errors on usage.
> > > > 
> > > > Add the missed check.
> > > 
> > > Applied, thanks!
> > > 
> > > [2/3] leds: lp8860: Check return value of devm_mutex_init()
> > >       commit: 426e0c8e8eed26b67bbbd138483bb5973724adae
> > 
> > Thanks, but (as mentioned in the cover letter) these patches should go
> > together through the mutex/locking tree.
> > Could you drop it on your side and give an Ack instead?
> 
> There has to be good reasons to do this.
>
> I didn't see any dependents or dependencies in this patch.

Patch 3 depends on patch 1 and 2.

It will break the build for each instance of an ignored return value
of devm_mutex_init(). Therefore all such instances need to be resolved
before the patch can be applied.
So the patches can't go through different trees.

In theory we could fix the drivers in this cycle and then change
devm_mutex_init() in the next one. But new regressions are introduced
over and over. This patch is already in the third cycle...


Thomas