On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 02:43:20AM -0500, Kurt Borja wrote: > On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 2:33 AM -05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:27:26AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:56:46PM -0500, Kurt Borja wrote: > >> I'll work on adding "if probe failed, don't let the device be created" > >> logic as it's a simple change, BUT it is a functionally different change > >> from what the current api that this code is replacing is doing (i.e. the > >> current platform device creation code does this today and no one has > >> ever hit this in their use of it in the past few decades.) > > > > How about something as simple as this change, does that provide what you > > are thinking about here? Only compile tested, not runtime tested at > > all: > > Yes, LGTM. However dev->driver is set to NULL if the probe fails so > wouldn't > > if (!dev->driver) > > do the job? True, that would work, and be much simpler, I'll go add that AND actually test it :) > I understand your point about groups. This of course solves it, although > isn't there a small windows between device_add() and device_destroy() in > the failed probe path, in which a show/store/visibility method could > dereference a NULL drvdata? Ok, I looked it up and it turns out that the groups wouldn't have even been created if probe() failed (see the call to call_driver_probe() in really_probe() in drivers/base/dd.c) So all should be good here. thanks, greg k-h
