linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: i2c-smbus: fwnode_irq_get

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

Message-ID: <Y1gPDyS2ck90pDF1@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:30:07 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: i2c-smbus: fwnode_irq_get_byname() return
 value fix

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 06:12:11PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> The fwnode_irq_get_byname() was changed to not return 0 upon failure so
> return value check can be adjusted to reflect the change.

...

> Depends on the mentioned return value change which is in patch 1/2. The
> return value change does also cause a functional change here. Eg. when
> IRQ mapping fails, the fwnode_irq_get_byname() no longer returns zero.
> This will cause also the probe here to return nonzero failure. I guess
> this is desired behaviour.

The entire error handling there looks suspicious.

The 'struct i2c_smbus_alert_setup' description says:

 "If irq is not specified, the smbus_alert driver doesn't take care of
  interrupt handling. In that case it is up to the I2C bus driver to
  either handle the interrupts or to poll for alerts."

So, the question is, shouldn't we just drop the check completely?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko