linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] regulator: max77620: Fix regulator info setting for max20024

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 14:39:23 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Zhang <markz@...dia.com>,
        Venkat Reddy Talla <vreddytalla@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] regulator: max77620: Fix regulator info setting
 for max20024

22.04.2019 8:35, Axel Lin пишет:
> Current code always set pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id];
> It should set to either max77620_regs_info or max20024_regs_info
> depends on the chip_id.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
> ---
> This was sent on https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/23/482
> 
>  drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c
> index 1607ac673e44..0ad91a7f9cb9 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c
> @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ static int max77620_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		rdesc = &rinfo[id].desc;
> -		pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id];
> +		pmic->rinfo[id] = &rinfo[id];
>  		pmic->enable_power_mode[id] = MAX77620_POWER_MODE_NORMAL;
>  		pmic->reg_pdata[id].active_fps_src = -1;
>  		pmic->reg_pdata[id].active_fps_pd_slot = -1;
> 

That is a quite difficult bug to spot because the regulator parameters are mostly identical and the part that differs is usually unused in practice, good catch! Thank you very much!

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Tested-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>