[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211003164726.42e20526@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 16:47:26 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Yizhuo <yzhai003@....edu>,
Mugilraj Dhavachelvan <dmugil2000@...il.com>,
Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: stm32-dfsdm: Fix the uninitialized use if
regmap_read() fails
On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 18:32:43 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:48:40 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:53:11 +0000
> > Yizhuo <yzhai003@....edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Inside function stm32_dfsdm_irq(), the variable "status", "int_en"
> > > could be uninitialized if the regmap_read() fails and returns an error
> > > code. However, they are directly used in the later context to decide
> > > the control flow, which is potentially unsafe.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e2e6771c64625 ("IIO: ADC: add STM32 DFSDM sigma delta ADC support")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yizhuo <yzhai003@....edu>
> >
> > Hi Yizhou
> >
> > I want to get some review of this from people familiar with the
> > hardware as there is a small possibility your reordering might have
> > introduced a problem.
>
> To stm32 people, can someone take a look at this?
This one is still outstanding. If anyone from stm32 side of things could take a look
that would be great,
Jonathan
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c | 9 +++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c
> > > index 1cfefb3b5e56..d8b78aead942 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c
> > > @@ -1292,9 +1292,11 @@ static irqreturn_t stm32_dfsdm_irq(int irq, void *arg)
> > > struct stm32_dfsdm_adc *adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > struct regmap *regmap = adc->dfsdm->regmap;
> > > unsigned int status, int_en;
> > > + int ret;
> > >
> > > - regmap_read(regmap, DFSDM_ISR(adc->fl_id), &status);
> > > - regmap_read(regmap, DFSDM_CR2(adc->fl_id), &int_en);
> >
> > Moving this later is only valid if there aren't any side effects.
> > The current ordering is strange enough it makes me wonder if there might be!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > > + ret = regmap_read(regmap, DFSDM_ISR(adc->fl_id), &status);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > >
> > > if (status & DFSDM_ISR_REOCF_MASK) {
> > > /* Read the data register clean the IRQ status */
> > > @@ -1303,6 +1305,9 @@ static irqreturn_t stm32_dfsdm_irq(int irq, void *arg)
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (status & DFSDM_ISR_ROVRF_MASK) {
> > > + ret = regmap_read(regmap, DFSDM_CR2(adc->fl_id), &int_en);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > if (int_en & DFSDM_CR2_ROVRIE_MASK)
> > > dev_warn(&indio_dev->dev, "Overrun detected\n");
> > > regmap_update_bits(regmap, DFSDM_ICR(adc->fl_id),
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists