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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210301071037.GP3@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 09:10:37 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.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

Hi Dan, Colin,

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 01:17:20PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

I think this could be fixed and cleaned up by always retuning zero on
success, and checking for flash->faults while holding the mutex in
adp1653_init_device. I could fix that, too, just let me know...

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus