linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC device

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: <87v9pdxcc2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:07:09 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Ravi Chandra Sadineni <ravisadineni@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC device

Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 7:59 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
>> index 4b11f0309eee..ccb6aea4f1d4 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
>> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev,
>>         unsigned long flags;
>>         struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
>>         struct wakeup_source *__ws;
>> +       struct platform_device *pdev;
>>         int ret = 0;
>>
>>         if (rtcdev)
>> @@ -99,6 +100,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev,
>>                 return -1;
>>
>>         __ws = wakeup_source_register(dev, "alarmtimer");
>> +       pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer", -1, NULL, 0);
>
> Don't you need to check for an error here?  If pdev is an error you'll
> continue on your merry way.  Before your patch if you got an error
> registering the device it would have caused probe to fail.

Yes, that return value should be checked

> I guess you'd only want it to be an error if "rtcdev" is NULL?

If rtcdev is not NULL then this code is not reached. See the begin of
this function :)

Thanks,

        tglx