linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 09/17] nvdimm/label: Export routine to fetch region information

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: <20260109120906.ixjmmqezw6uf2ijj@test-PowerEdge-R740xd>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 17:39:06 +0530
From: Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com,
	a.manzanares@...sung.com, vishak.g@...sung.com, neeraj.kernel@...il.com,
	cpgs@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 09/17] nvdimm/label: Export routine to fetch region
 information

On 17/12/25 03:12PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:22:47 +0530
>Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com> wrote:
>
>> CXL region information preserved from the LSA needs to be exported for
>> use by the CXL driver for CXL region re-creation.
>To me it feels like the !nvdimm checks may be excessive in an interface
>that makes no sense if NULL is passed in.
>Perhaps drop those?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/libnvdimm.h  |  2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>> index 3363a97cc5b5..1474b4e45fcc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>> @@ -280,6 +280,24 @@ void *nvdimm_provider_data(struct nvdimm *nvdimm)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvdimm_provider_data);
>>
>> +bool nvdimm_has_cxl_region(struct nvdimm *nvdimm)
>> +{
>> +	if (!nvdimm)
>> +		return false;
>
>Seems a bit odd that this would ever get called on !nvdimm.
>Is that protection worth adding?
>
>> +
>> +	return nvdimm->is_region_label;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvdimm_has_cxl_region);
>> +
>> +void *nvdimm_get_cxl_region_param(struct nvdimm *nvdimm)
>> +{
>> +	if (!nvdimm)
>
>This feels a little more plausible as defense but is this
>needed?

Yes we can avoid this check, I have fixed it in V5.


Regards,
Neeraj