netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: phy: tja11xx: remove call to devm_hwmon_sanitize

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: <20250314084554.322e790c@fedora-2.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:45:54 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Russell King - ARM Linux
 <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Miller
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Xu Liang <lxu@...linear.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jean Delvare
 <jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
 "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: phy: tja11xx: remove call to
 devm_hwmon_sanitize_name

Hello Heiner,

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:45:06 +0100
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:

> Since c909e68f8127 ("hwmon: (core) Use device name as a fallback in
> devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info") we can simply provide NULL
> as name argument.
> 
> Note that neither priv->hwmon_name nor priv->hwmon_dev are used
> outside tja11xx_hwmon_register.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c | 19 +++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c b/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> index 601094fe2..07e94a247 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> @@ -87,8 +87,6 @@
>  #define TJA110X_RMII_MODE_REFCLK_IN       BIT(0)
>  
>  struct tja11xx_priv {
> -	char		*hwmon_name;
> -	struct device	*hwmon_dev;
>  	struct phy_device *phydev;
>  	struct work_struct phy_register_work;
>  	u32 flags;
> @@ -508,19 +506,12 @@ static const struct hwmon_chip_info tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info = {
>  static int tja11xx_hwmon_register(struct phy_device *phydev,
>  				  struct tja11xx_priv *priv)
>  {
> -	struct device *dev = &phydev->mdio.dev;
> -
> -	priv->hwmon_name = devm_hwmon_sanitize_name(dev, dev_name(dev));
> -	if (IS_ERR(priv->hwmon_name))
> -		return PTR_ERR(priv->hwmon_name);
> -
> -	priv->hwmon_dev =
> -		devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, priv->hwmon_name,
> -						     phydev,
> -						     &tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info,
> -						     NULL);
> +	struct device *hdev, *dev = &phydev->mdio.dev;
>  
> -	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(priv->hwmon_dev);
> +	hdev = devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, NULL, phydev,
> +						    &tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info,
> +						    NULL);
> +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(hdev);
>  }

The change look correct to me, however I think you can go one step
further and remove the field tja11xx_priv.hwmon_name as well as
hwmon_dev.

One could argue that we can even remove tja11xx_hwmon_register()
entirely

Thanks,

Maxime