linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: adp1653: fix error handling from a call to adp1653_get

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: <20210227101719.GG2087@kadam>
Date:   Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:17:20 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: adp1653: fix error handling from a call to
 adp1653_get_fault

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:22:29PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The error check on rval from the call to adp1653_get_fault currently
> returns if rval is non-zero. This appears to be incorrect as the
> following if statement checks for various bit settings in rval so
> clearly rval is expected to be non-zero at that point. Coverity
> flagged the if statement up as deadcode.  Fix this so the error
> return path only occurs when rval is negative.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
> Fixes: 287980e49ffc ("remove lots of IS_ERR_VALUE abuses")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/media/i2c/adp1653.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/adp1653.c b/drivers/media/i2c/adp1653.c
> index 522a0b10e415..1a4878385394 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/adp1653.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/adp1653.c
> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static int adp1653_set_ctrl(struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl)
>  	int rval;
>  
>  	rval = adp1653_get_fault(flash);
> -	if (rval)
> +	if (rval < 0)
>  		return rval;

This is good, but all the other callers need to fixed as well:


   140  static int adp1653_get_ctrl(struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl)
   141  {
   142          struct adp1653_flash *flash =
   143                  container_of(ctrl->handler, struct adp1653_flash, ctrls);
   144          int rval;
   145  
   146          rval = adp1653_get_fault(flash);
   147          if (rval)
   148                  return rval;
   149  
   150          ctrl->cur.val = 0;
   151  
   152          if (flash->fault & ADP1653_REG_FAULT_FLT_SCP)
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
flash->fault is the equivalent of "rval" for non-negative returns so
this condition can never be true.  We should never be returning these
weird firmware ADP1653_REG_FAULT_FLT_SCP fault codes to the v4l2 layers.

   153                  ctrl->cur.val |= V4L2_FLASH_FAULT_SHORT_CIRCUIT;
   154          if (flash->fault & ADP1653_REG_FAULT_FLT_OT)
   155                  ctrl->cur.val |= V4L2_FLASH_FAULT_OVER_TEMPERATURE;
   156          if (flash->fault & ADP1653_REG_FAULT_FLT_TMR)
   157                  ctrl->cur.val |= V4L2_FLASH_FAULT_TIMEOUT;
   158          if (flash->fault & ADP1653_REG_FAULT_FLT_OV)
   159                  ctrl->cur.val |= V4L2_FLASH_FAULT_OVER_VOLTAGE;
   160  
   161          flash->fault = 0;
   162  
   163          return 0;
   164  }

regards,
dan carpenter