linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: twl4030: clarify the return value for read and write

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091211121131.GC5863@sortiz.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:11:32 +0100
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...ia.com>
Cc:	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
	"gadiyar@...com" <gadiyar@...com>,
	List Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	List Linux Omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: twl4030: clarify the return value for read
 and write

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:53:45PM +0200, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36:10AM +0100, ext Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > Hi Amit,
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 03:53:09PM +0200, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 01:17:29PM +0100, ext Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > > Infact, we can just return -EIO so that caller knows for sure that all
> > > > messages were not tranferred. Please consider fixed patch instead.
> > > > 
> > > > We should be checking if all the messages were tranferred or not. And return
> > > > -1 for failure. Currently we return success (0) even if none of messages were
> > > > transferred successfully.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> > > >  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > > > index 56f1de5..3d2c413 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > > > @@ -292,10 +292,14 @@ int twl4030_i2c_write(u8 mod_no, u8 *value, u8 reg, unsigned num_bytes)
> > > >  	ret = i2c_transfer(twl->client->adapter, twl->xfer_msg, 1);
> > > >  	mutex_unlock(&twl->xfer_lock);
> > > >  
> > > > -	/* i2cTransfer returns num messages.translate it pls.. */
> > > > -	if (ret >= 0)
> > > > -		ret = 0;
> > > > -	return ret;
> > > > +	/* i2c_transfer returns number of messages transferred */
> > > > +	if (ret != 1) {
> > > > +		pr_err("%s: i2c_write failed to transfer all messages\n",
> > > > +			DRIVER_NAME);
> > > > +		return -EIO;
> > > 
> > > How about reporting the actual error that has occurred and reported by i2c_transfer?
> > > Instead of just masking it as EIO? If i2c_transfer returns something > 0 then EIO should be right.
> > > But if returns and error code, then that error code must be reported to upper layers.
> > >
> > So, I applied a modified version of this patch, see below. If you disagree
> > with it, please let me know and I wont push it upstream.
> > 
> 
> OK.
> 
> > 
> > commit 8aa7cfd5732dee80aaaf3caa0a1d2f9621126315
> > Author: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>
> > Date:   Fri Dec 11 11:31:11 2009 +0100
> > 
> >     mfd: Clarify twl4030 return value for read and write
> >     
> >     We should be checking if all the messages were tranferred. If not, then we
> >     should propagate the i2c core error code.
> >     Currently we return success (0) even if none of messages were transferred
> >     successfully.
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > index e4a5d48..8add16c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c
> > @@ -306,10 +306,14 @@ int twl4030_i2c_write(u8 mod_no, u8 *value, u8 reg, unsigned num_bytes)
> >  	ret = i2c_transfer(twl->client->adapter, twl->xfer_msg, 1);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&twl->xfer_lock);
> >  
> > -	/* i2cTransfer returns num messages.translate it pls.. */
> > -	if (ret >= 0)
> > -		ret = 0;
> > -	return ret;
> > +	/* i2c_transfer returns number of messages transferred */
> > +	if (ret != 1) {
> > +		pr_err("%s: i2c_write failed to transfer all messages\n",
> > +			DRIVER_NAME);
> > +		return ret;
> 
> For this case we will be returning success if i2c_transfer fails to transfer the one message.
> I guess we should return ret only if ret < 0 ? otherwise -EIO.
Yes, that's correct, fixed now.

Cheers,
Samuel.

 
> > +	} else {
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(twl4030_i2c_write);
> >  
> > @@ -358,10 +362,14 @@ int twl4030_i2c_read(u8 mod_no, u8 *value, u8 reg, unsigned num_bytes)
> >  	ret = i2c_transfer(twl->client->adapter, twl->xfer_msg, 2);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&twl->xfer_lock);
> >  
> > -	/* i2cTransfer returns num messages.translate it pls.. */
> > -	if (ret >= 0)
> > -		ret = 0;
> > -	return ret;
> > +	/* i2c_transfer returns number of messages transferred */
> > +	if (ret != 2) {
> > +		pr_err("%s: i2c_read failed to transfer all messages\n",
> > +			DRIVER_NAME);
> > +		return ret;
> 
> Same case here, we will be returning success if i2c_transfer fails to transfer any of those messages.
> I guess we should return ret only if ret < 0 ? otherwise -EIO.
> 
> 
> > +	} else {
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(twl4030_i2c_read);
> >  
> > -- 
> > Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> > http://oss.intel.com/
> 
> -- 
> Eduardo Valentin

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
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/