linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: Add BUG() assertion if max98088_get

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: <20110929103413.GK3697@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:13 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Peter Hsiang <peter.hsiang@...im-ic.com>,
	Jesse Marroquin <jesse.marroquin@...im-ic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: Add BUG() assertion if max98088_get_channel
 returns -EINVAL

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:15:03AM +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 29/09/11 00:01, Axel Lin wrote:
> > The callers use the return value of max98088_get_channel as array index to
> > access max98088->dai[] array.
> > Add BUG() assertion for out of bound access of max98088->dai[] array.

> BUG() is pretty heavy handed for a driver. Why not fix the problem
> properly in the callers?

There's nothing constructive that any of the callers can do with an
error code - it's a clear bug in something (probably the driver) if we
get called for a bad control.  Simply returning an error code isn't
terribly helpful, it's very obscure what's gone wrong and why.  We at
least need a log message.
--
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/