linux-kernel - Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod

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]

Message-ID: <559EE338.4060107@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:10:16 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call
 "gpiod_put"

>> The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
>> file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.
>>
>> * i2c_hid_remove() function:
>>   Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?
>>
>> * i2c_hid_probe() function:
>>   Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
>>   will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
>>   label "err" will be reached?
>>
> 
> Again, in both case it is completely normal to have "ihid->desc ==
> NULL" given that this field is only retrieved in case of an ACPI
> device which does not declares an IRQ but a GPIO. Most ACPI devices I
> saw are using a simple IRQ, and the OF instantiations of the driver
> will definitively have ihid->desc null. So I do not want to have a
> warning for most of i2c-hid devices out there (because I will have to
> explain that this is completely normal again and again).

Would it make sense to annotate checks before such function calls
as "unlikely" then?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/