linux-kernel - Re: pinctrl: core: Handling pinmux and pinconf separately

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:49:00 +0000
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pinctrl: core: Handling pinmux and pinconf separately

On 12/03/2021 12:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:26 PM Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> wrote:
>> On 11/03/2021 11:16, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 3/11/21 11:57 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> 
>>>> For the PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN and PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP
>>>> setting->type cases the loop can break out with ret not being set. Since
>>>> ret has not been initialized it the ret < 0 check is checking against an
>>>> uninitialized value.
>>>>
>>>> I was not sure if the PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN and
>>>> PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP cases should be setting ret and if so, what
>>>> the value of ret should be set to (is it an error condition or not?). Or
>>>> should ret be initialized to 0 or a default error value at the start of
>>>> the function.
>>>>
>>>> Hence I'm reporting this issue.
>>>
>>> What about this? Is this passing static analysis?
>>
>> It will take me 2 hours to re-run the analysis, but from eyeballing the
>> code I think the assignments will fix this.
> 
> It surprises me that tools in the 21st century can't run on a subset
> of the data.
> 
> Had you filed a bug to the Coverity team that they will provide a way
> to rerun analysis on a subset of the data?

It can. However I need to keep copies of the entire build to do this and
I build many different kernels (hence lots of storage required) and
rarely do minor change + rebuilds, so I don't cater for this in my test
build environment.

> 
>