netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] spi: Remove code duplication in spi_add_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]

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:47:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>,
	Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
	Amit Kumar Mahapatra via Alsa-devel <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
	Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>,
	Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi <quic_vnivarth@...cinc.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Sanjay R Mehta <sanju.mehta@....com>,
	Radu Pirea <radu_nicolae.pirea@....ro>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
	Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
	Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
	Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
	Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
	Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@...s.st.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] spi: Remove code duplication in
 spi_add_device_locked()

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:01:33PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:06:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > -	struct device *dev = ctlr->dev.parent;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* Chipselects are numbered 0..max; validate. */
> > > > -	if (spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0) >= ctlr->num_chipselect) {
> > > > -		dev_err(dev, "cs%d >= max %d\n", spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0),
> > > > -			ctlr->num_chipselect);
> > > > -		return -EINVAL;
> > > > -	}
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* Set the bus ID string */
> > > > -	spi_dev_set_name(spi);
> > > 
> > > I see that this is duplicating spi_add_device() (and we really could do
> > > better with code sharing there I think) but I can't immediately see
> > > where the duplication that's intended to be elimiated is here - where
> > > else in the one call path that spi_add_device_locked() has would we do
> > > the above?  Based on the changelog I was expecting to see some
> > > duplicated code in the function itself.
> > 
> > Oh, by some reason Sebastian wasn't in this rather long Cc list.
> > Added him.
> > 
> > Reading again I don't see any useful explanation why that piece of code has to
> > be duplicated among these two functions. It's 100% a copy.
> > 
> > Sebastian, can you shed some light here?
> 
> The patch in this thread is obviously wrong. It results in the
> checks never beeing called for spi_add_device_locked(). The copy is
> in spi_add_device() and those two are not calling into each other.

Ah, now I see, I missed __ in the name.
Thank you for opening my eyes!

> But it should be fine to move the code to the start of
> __spi_add_device(), which allows removing the duplication. In that
> case the code will be run with the add_lock held, which is probably
> what I was worried about two years ago. Looking at it again, the
> lock is held anyways in case of spi_add_device_locked().

Right, I will re-do that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko