linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: mv_xor

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]

Message-ID: <4464e70f-71a3-3c04-7e53-8ccf2e143a04@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 22:23:55 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: mv_xor_v2: Fix an error code.

Le 29/03/2023 à 12:27, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 09:06:37AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> If the probe is deferred, -EPROBE_DEFER should be returned, not
>> +EPROBE_DEFER.
>>
>> Fixes: 3cd2c313f1d6 ("dmaengine: mv_xor_v2: Fix clock resource by adding a register clock")
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>>   drivers/dma/mv_xor_v2.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/mv_xor_v2.c b/drivers/dma/mv_xor_v2.c
>> index 89790beba305..0991b8265829 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/mv_xor_v2.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/mv_xor_v2.c
>> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ static int mv_xor_v2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	xor_dev->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>   	if (PTR_ERR(xor_dev->clk) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
>> -		ret = EPROBE_DEFER;
>> +		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>   		goto disable_reg_clk;
> 
> Heh.  Looking through the Smatch results, I don't think this actually
> affects runtime because driver_probe_device() checks for both positive
> and negatives.  People shouldn't be returning positives, of course, but
> it appears there is a work around for bugs built in already.

Correct, but weird.

I've tried to look at the history of [1], but couldn't find any rational 
for it.

Apparently it was already in the v1 of the serie. [2]

CJ

[1]: 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=45ddcb42949f825f0caa25352e825cede94b6aba
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210614150846.4111871-5-hch@lst.de/

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
>