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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:31:21 +0200
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com>,
        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



On 6/28/22 14:27, Linus Walleij wrote:
> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 8:26 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I don't think this patch should be applied.
> 
> The problem with static analysis is that such tools have no feeling
> for context at all, and in this case the context makes it pretty
> clear why it is safe to ignore these return values.
> 
> But we need to adopt the tool to the code not adopt the code to
> the tool.

ok. No problem. Thanks for discussion.

Thanks,
Michal