linux-kernel - Re: [lvc-project] [PATCH v2 2/2] MIPS: BCM63xx: Add check for NULL for clk in clk

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]

Message-ID: <29f1887f-bce4-2065-8e0d-2faef30e38db@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 10:23:19 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
        Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc:     lvc-project@...uxtesting.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [lvc-project] [PATCH v2 2/2] MIPS: BCM63xx: Add check for NULL
 for clk in clk_enable

On 12/7/22 07:53, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> On 07.12.2022 17:28, Anastasia Belova wrote:
>> Errors from previous version of patch fixed.
>> Check clk for NULL before calling clk_enable_unlocked where clk
>> is dereferenced. There is such check in other implementations
>> of clk_enable.
>>
>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>> Fixes: e7300d04bd08 ("MIPS: BCM63xx: Add support for the Broadcom BCM63xx family of SOCs.")
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>
>> ---
>>   arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c b/arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c
>> index 401140cf36d9..cf303d6e6693 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c
>> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static struct clk clk_periph = {
>>   int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
>>   {
>>   	if (!clk)
>> -		return;
>> +		return 0;
>>   
>>   	mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
>>   	clk_enable_unlocked(clk);
>>
> 
> Keeping in mind that the first patch is not applied yet, it does not
> make sense to fix it by the second one. It is better to fix the first
> patch itself by sending the next version.

Exactly, you would to combine both patches into a single patch and send 
that as a version 3 now.
-- 
Florian