linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rtc: s5m: check the return value of s5m8767_rtc_init

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdLAupcMkSEpdVJiBTogbN6G2aqr=kC+0GT6s-igSSL0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:11:24 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rtc: s5m: check the return value of s5m8767_rtc_init_reg()

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:35 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:40:26PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > This function can fail if regmap operations fail so check its return
> > value in probe().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> > index eb9dde4095a9..e0011d3cf61b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> > @@ -791,6 +791,8 @@ static int s5m_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
> >
> >       ret = s5m8767_rtc_init_reg(info);
> > +     if (ret)
> > +             return ret;
>
> You leak I2C device.
>

Yes, the next patch fixes it but I changed the order. Actually this
can be moved after 3/3 with no conflicts when applying.

Bartosz