linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/12] gpio: it87: use new line value setter callbacks

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=Mc8ViSPyTn9Brr-us2V+D7Jv3u+B8Ek2nuzF36yH70RAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 20:48:27 -0800
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Gibson <daniel@...son.sh>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, 
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Lixu Zhang <lixu.zhang@...el.com>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] gpio: it87: use new line value setter callbacks

On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 05:55:15 +0100, Daniel Gibson <daniel@...son.sh> said:
> Hi,
> I got one nitpick/question about this, see below
>
> On 4/23/25 09:15, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> @@ -249,7 +250,9 @@ static int it87_gpio_direction_out(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>>  	/* set the output enable bit */
>>  	superio_set_mask(mask, group + it87_gpio->output_base);
>>
>> -	it87_gpio_set(chip, gpio_num, val);
>> +	rc = it87_gpio_set(chip, gpio_num, val);
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		goto exit;
>>  >  	superio_exit();
>
> Are you sure that superio_exit() should be skipped (with goto exit) in
> case it87_gpio_set() fails?
> After all, superio_enter() above (not visible here) succeeded,
> only the it87_gpio_set() call failed.
>
> Of course this is kinda academic because currently it87_gpio_set()
> always returns 0, but if it ever doesn't, this might become a bug?
>

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, you're probably right and thats's
just an unintentional omission on my part. Do you want to send a patch that
will fix it or do you prefer me to do it?

Bart