[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74059494-3610-c24e-7d09-b89106c0a396@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:49:41 +0200
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mmc: sdhci-s3c: fix possible NULL pointer dereference
when probed via platform
On 14.04.2021 17:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/04/2021 17:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The driver can be matched by legacy platform way or OF-device matching.
>> In the first case, of_match_node() can return NULL, which immediately
>> would be dereferenced to get the match data.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: Dereference null return value
>> Fixes: cd1b00eb24b0 ("mmc: sdhci-s3c: Add device tree support")
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> -static const struct of_device_id sdhci_s3c_dt_match[];
>> -#endif
>> -
>> static inline struct sdhci_s3c_drv_data *sdhci_s3c_get_driver_data(
>> struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> - if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
>> - const struct of_device_id *match;
>> - match = of_match_node(sdhci_s3c_dt_match, pdev->dev.of_node);
>
> Now I have second thoughts whether NULL pointer can actually happen. If
> device is matched via platform/board files, maybe the pdev->dev.of_node
> will be NULL thus skipping this branch?
>
> Could there be a case where device is matched via platform_device_id()
> (which has different name than compatible!) and (pdev->dev.of_node) is
> still assigned? Maybe in case of out of tree DTS?
That seems unlikely, the platform device would need to be initialized
via board file and then its of_node assigned somehow. It doesn't make
much sense to me. We either use board file or dtb to instantiate devices.
> Anyway, the patch makes the code simpler/smaller, so I still think it is
> reasonable. Just the severity of issue is questionable...
Yes, the patch looks good. Similar cleanups are already done in most of
the s3c/s5p/exynos drivers.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
Powered by blists - more mailing lists