[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <9619dfcd-90e5-413a-f0ff-636228a1a1cd@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:37:32 +0900
From: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: core: check whether ops callback function is assigned
On 12/27/2016 05:31 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 22 December 2016 03:12 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> If some ops-> callback function are not assigend, then it should do the
>> unexpect behavior.
>> To prevent the potential NULL pointer dereference, check the each
>> callback functions before doing operation.
>
> The call backs checks are done after the mutex. Moreover even if the call backs
> are not assigned, the user can call the phy ops for doing pm_runtime.
Yes. I found this patch also is wrong. Thanks for pointing out.
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/phy/phy-core.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
>> index a268f4d6f3e9..e4eb4431c8a4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
>> @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ int phy_init(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!phy)
>> + if (!phy || !phy->ops->init)
>> return 0;
>>
>> ret = phy_pm_runtime_get_sync(phy);
>> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!phy)
>> + if (!phy || !phy->ops->exit)
>> return 0;
>>
>> ret = phy_pm_runtime_get_sync(phy);
>> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ int phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> - if (!phy)
>> + if (!phy || !phy->ops->power_on)
>> goto out;
>>
>> if (phy->pwr) {
>> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ int phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!phy)
>> + if (!phy || !phy->ops->power_off)
>> return 0;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&phy->mutex);
>>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists