linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] misc: atmel-ssc: Fix platform_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fa7e7cbc-1c18-64f8-67eb-505ad5dcbad5@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:06:53 +0100
From:   Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <joel@....id.au>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] misc: atmel-ssc: Fix platform_get_irq's error
 checking

On 18/11/2017 at 10:10, Arvind Yadav wrote:
> The platform_get_irq() function returns negative if an error occurs.
> zero or positive number on success. platform_get_irq() error checking
> for zero is not correct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
> ---
> changes in v2 :
>               Add failure case '<= 0' instead of '< 0'. IRQ 0 is not valid.
> 
>  drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> index b2a0340..9d9eeae 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ static int ssc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(ssc->clk);
>  
>  	ssc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> -	if (!ssc->irq) {
> +	if (ssc->irq <= 0) {
>  		dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "could not get irq\n");
> -		return -ENXIO;
> +		return ssc->irq;

if ssc->irq = 0, I believe that returning 0 is not the right thing to do.

Regards,

>  	}
>  
>  	spin_lock(&user_lock);
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre