linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Check return value of of_property_read

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d780076d-ed24-f656-46b1-4d78cd0a17c1@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 08:26:47 +0200
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "Michal Simek" <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        <neelisrinivas18@...il.com>,
        "Shubhrajyoti Datta" <shubhrajyoti.datta@...inx.com>,
        <srinivas.neeli@....com>, "Srinivas Goud" <sgoud@...inx.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        git <git@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Check return value of
 of_property_read_u32

Hi Andy,

On 6/17/22 18:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:20 AM Srinivas Neeli
> <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com> wrote:
>>
>> In five different instances the return value of "of_property_read_u32"
>> API was neither captured nor checked.
>>
>> Fixed it by capturing the return value and then checking for any error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com>
>> Addresses-Coverity: "check_return"
> 
> I think the best course of action here is to go and fix Coverity while
> marking these as false positives.
> 
> To the idea of castings -- this is not good style and (many?)
> maintainers in kernel do not accept such "workaround" for fixing
> broken tool.

Let's wait for Linus what he will say about it.
I can't see nothing wrong about declaring that I am intentionally ignoring 
return code.

Thanks,
Michal