linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 061/106] PCI: rockchip: Propagate errors for optional regulators

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: <20191008122416.GE608@amd>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:24:16 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 061/106] PCI: rockchip: Propagate errors for
 optional regulators

On Sun 2019-10-06 19:21:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> 
> [ Upstream commit 0e3ff0ac5f71bdb6be2a698de0ed0c7e6e738269 ]
> 
> regulator_get_optional() can fail for a number of reasons besides probe
> deferral. It can for example return -ENOMEM if it runs out of memory as
> it tries to allocate data structures. Propagating only -EPROBE_DEFER is
> problematic because it results in these legitimately fatal errors being
> treated as "regulator not specified in DT".
> 
> What we really want is to ignore the optional regulators only if they
> have not been specified in DT. regulator_get_optional() returns -ENODEV
> in this case, so that's the special case that we need to handle. So we
> propagate all errors, except -ENODEV, so that real failures will still
> cause the driver to fail probe.

61,62,63,64: Is this fixing any real bug? Why is it suitable for
-stable?

								Pavel

> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> @@ -608,29 +608,29 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>  
>  	rockchip->vpcie12v = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie12v");
>  	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v)) {
> -		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v) != -ENODEV)
> +			return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v);
>  		dev_info(dev, "no vpcie12v regulator found\n");
>  	}
>  
>  	rockchip->vpcie3v3 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie3v3");
>  	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) {
> -		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3) != -ENODEV)
> +			return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3);
>  		dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n");
>  	}
>  
>  	rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8");
>  	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) {
> -		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV)
> +			return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8);
>  		dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n");
>  	}
>  
>  	rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9");
>  	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) {
> -		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +		if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV)
> +			return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9);
>  		dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n");
>  	}
>  

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)