linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:39:17 -0800
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure

On 12/01, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> We were not checking the return from devm_add_action() which can fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/qcom/common.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> index c112eba..3541a9a 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> @@ -213,7 +213,10 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, pdev->dev.of_node);
> +	ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider,
> +			      pdev->dev.of_node);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

So now we don't remove the clk provider on allocation failure?
Confused.

>  
>  	reset = &cc->reset;
>  	reset->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node;
> @@ -236,8 +239,12 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  			return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> -
> +	ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		if (desc->gdscs && desc->num_gdscs)
> +			gdsc_unregister(dev);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

You seem to have missed the reset devm action. Why?

Also, I wonder if we could have devm_add_action() or some other
new devm_add_action() wrapper that tried to add the action, and
if it failed it ran the action right there and returned the
-ENOMEM? So then we can just have:

	ret = devm_add_action_or_do_it(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev)
	if (ret)
		return ret;

and we're assured that on the failure path we'll have already
called qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/