linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: use guard() to release mutexes

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: <20250910193641.7c982d46@jic23-huawei>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:36:41 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol
 <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@....com>, rafael@...nel.org, David Lechner
 <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy
 Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Jean-Baptiste
 Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@...ensense.com>, Jonathan Cameron
 <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: use guard() to release
 mutexes

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 16:15:04 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:53:02AM +0000, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 09:11:11AM +0200, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  	/* exit if FIFO is already on */
> > > >  	if (st->fifo.on) {
> > > > -		ret = 0;
> > > > -		goto out_on;  
> > > 
> > > Probably you wanted the same comment here
> > > 
> > > 	/* increase FIFO on counter */
> > >   
> > > > +		st->fifo.on++;
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > >  	}  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  	/* exit if there are several sensors using the FIFO */
> > > >  	if (st->fifo.on > 1) {
> > > > -		ret = 0;
> > > > -		goto out_off;  
> > > 
> > > In the similar way
> > >   
> > 
> > Considered it. But isn't it obvious whats happening?  
> 
> With the same equality existing ones may be killed. Some of consistency at least :-)
> 
> > I will be happy to add them...  
> 
> > > 	/* decrease FIFO on counter */
> > >   
> > > > +		st->fifo.on--;
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > >  	}  
> 
Applied with this tweak.  Thanks

diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_icm42600/inv_icm42600_buffer.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_icm42600/inv_icm42600_buffer.c
index 15391961bf96..ada968be954d 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_icm42600/inv_icm42600_buffer.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_icm42600/inv_icm42600_buffer.c
@@ -300,7 +300,6 @@ static int inv_icm42600_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 
        guard(mutex)(&st->lock);
 
-       /* exit if FIFO is already on */
        if (st->fifo.on) {
                st->fifo.on++;
                return 0;
@@ -329,7 +328,6 @@ static int inv_icm42600_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
        if (ret)
                return ret;
 
-       /* increase FIFO on counter */
        st->fifo.on++;
 
        return 0;
@@ -342,7 +340,6 @@ static int inv_icm42600_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 
        guard(mutex)(&st->lock);
 
-       /* exit if there are several sensors using the FIFO */
        if (st->fifo.on > 1) {
                st->fifo.on--;
                return 0;
@@ -366,7 +363,6 @@ static int inv_icm42600_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
        if (ret)
                return ret;
 
-       /* decrease FIFO on counter */
        st->fifo.on--;
 
        return 0;