linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: busses: Fix error handling in synquacer_i2c

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:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:15 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: busses: Fix error handling in synquacer_i2c_probe

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 9:18 AM Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Andy Shevchenko
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:04:06AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > > In the error handling path, the clk_prepare_enable() function
> > > call should be balanced by a corresponding 'clk_disable_unprepare()'
> > > call, as already done in the remove function.
> >
> >
> > It’s not good to mix devm approach with non-devm.
> >
> Thanks for your review. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. Could you please explain more? What functions are your referring to? Thanks.

Your entire patch is broken. The error handling in ->probe() and
complete ->remove() now have asymmetrical ordering.

On top of that the CCF is NULL aware (and error pointer IIRC), so no
need to have additional checks.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko