On Mon, 2024-08-19 at 21:34 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 08:19:28PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > Le 19/08/2024 à 18:51, Philipp Stanner a écrit : > > > ... > > > Unrelated to the patch, but is is safe to have 'name' be on the > > stack? > > > > pcim_iomap_region() > > --> __pcim_request_region() > > --> __pcim_request_region_range() > > --> request_region() or __request_mem_region() > > --> __request_region() > > --> __request_region_locked() > > --> res->name = name; > > > > So an address on the stack ends in the 'name' field of a "struct > > resource". > > > > According to a few grep, it looks really unusual. > > > > I don't know if it is used, but it looks strange to me. > > It might be used when printing /proc/iomem, but I don't remember by > heart. > > > If it is an issue, it was apparently already there before this > > patch. > > This series seems to reveal a lot of issues with the probe/remove in > many > drivers. I think it's better to make fixes of them before this series > for > the sake of easier backporting. Just so we're in sync: I think the only real bug here so far is the one found by Christophe. The usages of pci_disable_device(), pcim_iounmap_regions() and the like in remove() and error unwind paths are not elegant and make devres kind of useless – but they are not bugs. So I wouldn't backport them. P. > > If here is a problem, the devm_kasprintf() should be used. >
