linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks

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: <571242F4.5080103@canonical.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Apr 2016 14:49:40 +0100
From:	Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count
 clks

On 16/04/16 13:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sat 2016-04-16 13:50:03, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> It is entirely possible for of_count_phandle_wit_args to
>> return a -ve error return value so we need to check for this
>> otherwise we end up allocating a negative number of clk objects.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> 
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> index 0e64a1b..3657ac1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ int of_pm_clk_add_clks(struct device *dev)
>>  
>>  	count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "clocks",
>>  					   "#clock-cells");
>> -	if (count == 0)
>> +	if (count <= 0)
>>  		return -ENODEV;
> 
> Would it make sense to propagate the error value?

I don't think it will contribute much more than the current return.

> 
> 									Pavel
>