linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: 6214/2: fix release_mem

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: <aVACwVDQP0MJvHVP@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 18:01:05 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Thomas Fourier <fourier.thomas@...il.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: 6214/2: fix release_mem_region() size

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 08:28:27AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> The patch prefix should be "auxdisplay: arm-charlcd:", not an rmk
> patch tracker ID.
> 
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 at 18:49, Thomas Fourier <fourier.thomas@...il.com> wrote:
> > It seems like, after the request_mem_region(), the corresponding
> > release_mem_region() must take the same size. This was done
> > in charlcd_remove() but not in the error path in charlcd_probe().
> 
> Unfortunately charlcd_remove() was removed in one of these silly
> "make <foo> explicitly non-modular" patches...
> 
> > Fixes: ce8962455e90 ("ARM: 6214/2: driver for the character LCD found in ARM refdesigns")
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Fourier <fourier.thomas@...il.com>
> 
> > --- a/drivers/auxdisplay/arm-charlcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/auxdisplay/arm-charlcd.c
> > @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ static int __init charlcd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  out_no_irq:
> >         iounmap(lcd->virtbase);
> >  out_no_memregion:
> 
> Looks like the first "goto out_no_memregion" is incorrect, and should be
> "goto out_no_resource".

Should it be in this change or in a separate change? I'm not sure I got what
should be done about this.

> > -       release_mem_region(lcd->phybase, SZ_4K);
> > +       release_mem_region(lcd->phybase, lcd->physize);
> >  out_no_resource:
> >         kfree(lcd);
> >         return ret;
> 
> The actual change LGTM to me, so
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>

Reading between the lines, should I alter the commit message to mention that
there is no more charlcd_remove()? Something like:

    It seems like, after the request_mem_region(), the corresponding
    release_mem_region() must take the same size. This was done
    in recently dropped charlcd_remove() but not in the error path
    in charlcd_probe().

(and Subject line)?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko