linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial: samsung: Checks the return value of function

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: <X/LoBqoVf9H6wI8U@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:03:50 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tamseel Shams <m.shams@...sung.com>
Cc:     kgene@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org, jslaby@...e.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: samsung: Checks the return value of function

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:05:51PM +0530, Tamseel Shams wrote:
> "uart_add_one_port" function call may fail and return
> some error code, so adding a check for return value.
> If it is returning some error code, then displaying the
> result and returning back from there.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamseel Shams <m.shams@...sung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> index 6ef614d8648c..a220ba166ffe 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> @@ -2072,7 +2072,11 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s: adding port\n", __func__);
> -	uart_add_one_port(&s3c24xx_uart_drv, &ourport->port);
> +	ret = uart_add_one_port(&s3c24xx_uart_drv, &ourport->port);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to add uart port, err %d\n", ret);
> +		return ret;

Why are you not unwinding the other logic that happened above?  If this
fails, you need to properly do that as well, otherwise the driver is
still registered, right?

thanks,

greg k-h