linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] reset: make the provider of reset-gpios the parent of the reset device

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Md_-mO=HqfncD-vJS6XzPJ+aTcBjSjtkxLH_h1=pNjCcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:25:55 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, 
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] reset: make the provider of reset-gpios the parent of
 the reset device

On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 5:19 PM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> >       if (!label_tmp)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -919,6 +915,11 @@ static int __reset_add_reset_gpio_device(const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> >       if (args->args_count != 2)
> >               return -ENOENT;
> >
> > +     struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) =
> > +             gpio_device_find_by_fwnode(of_fwnode_handle(args->np));
>
> We are mixing cleanup helpers with gotos in this function, which the
> documentation in cleanup.h explicitly advises against.
>
> I know the current code is already guilty, but could you take this
> opportunity to prepend a patch that splits the part under guard() into
> a separate function?
>

If I'm being honest, I'd just make everything else use __free() as
well. Except for IDA, it's possible.

That being said: I have another thing in the works, namely converting
the OF code to fwnode in reset core. I may address this there as I'll
be moving stuff around. Does this make sense?

> I'd also move this block after the lockdep_assert_not_held() below.
>

Yeah lockdep asserts should be at the top of the function.

Bart