linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] base: soc: export soc_device_get

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: <DFSSBD1SZUDK.Q67HAARLBF1G@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 19:41:26 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Bartosz Golaszewski" <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>, "Saravana Kannan"
 <saravanak@...nel.org>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)"
 <chleroy@...nel.org>, "Shawn Guo" <shawnguo@...nel.org>, "Sascha Hauer"
 <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, "Pengutronix Kernel Team"
 <kernel@...gutronix.de>, "Fabio Estevam" <festevam@...il.com>, "Geert
 Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@...der.be>, "Magnus Damm"
 <magnus.damm@...il.com>, "Chen-Yu Tsai" <wens@...nel.org>, "Jernej Skrabec"
 <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, "Samuel Holland" <samuel@...lland.org>,
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 <imx@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] base: soc: export soc_device_get_machine()

On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 12:36 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 11:40 AM CET, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> -static void soc_device_get_machine(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
>> +int soc_device_get_machine(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
>>  {
>> -	struct device_node *np;
>> -
>>  	if (soc_dev_attr->machine)
>> -		return;
>> +		return -EBUSY;
>> +
>> +	struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>> +	if (!np)
>> +		return -ENOENT;
>
> This should never fail at this point, no? Also, can't we just use of_root?

Regarding of_root, please disregard my earlier comment. I mistakenly assumed
that it would also be guarded by CONFIG_OF.

But I still think we do not need the NULL check.

>> -	np = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>> -	of_property_read_string(np, "model", &soc_dev_attr->machine);
>> -	of_node_put(np);
>> +	return of_property_read_string(np, "model", &soc_dev_attr->machine);
>>  }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(soc_device_get_machine);
>
> If we want to export this, we shouldn't reuse the existing name, which is
> misleading.
>
> soc_device_get_machine() reads as if we return a reference count of something.
> Additionally, it operates on struct soc_device_attribute instead of struct
> soc_device, where the name suggests the latter.
>
> Instead this should be soc_device_attribute_read_machine() or if we want a
> shorter name, just soc_attr_read_machine().