linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] extcon: palmas: hide error messages if gpio returns -EPROBE

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: <20200218102140.GA193069@lenoch>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:21:40 +0100
From:   Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>
To:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org,
        kernel@...a-handheld.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] extcon: palmas: hide error messages if gpio returns
 -EPROBE_DEFER

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:28:25PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 2/17/20 10:38 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > If the gpios are probed after this driver (e.g. if they
> > come from an i2c expander) there is no need to print an
> > error message.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > index edc5016f46f1..cea58d0cb457 100644
> > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > @@ -205,14 +205,18 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id",
> >  							GPIOD_IN);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
> > +	if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +	} else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get id gpio\n");
> >  		return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "vbus",
> >  							GPIOD_IN);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) {
> > +	if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +	} else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) {
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get vbus gpio\n");
> >  		return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod);
> >  	}
> > 
> 
> I think that it is enough to handle the -EPROBE_DEFER.
> Also, I prefer to use single if/else statement 
> instead of the nested if/else statement.
> 
> Applied it.

Uh... As it is? Then it is matter of time it triggers someones cocci
script pointing to else after return. Could you at least fix this?

Thanks,
	ladis