linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] of/platform: Propagate firmware node by calling device_set

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: <ZItGzw5HO/GFoRAD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:13:51 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] of/platform: Propagate firmware node by calling
 device_set_node()

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:44:52AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:03:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > in the code which seems to me problematic in two ways:
> > > > 1) (minor) the dev_set_name() may fail, no checks are there;
> 
> Is there anything besides a memory alloc failure? What will print a
> message already. Wouldn't we fail a bit later on when adding the
> device anyways?

I don't see how we fail. Any pointers?

> In a rough count, 92 out of 500 cases check the return of
> dev_set_name().

Yeah, because it was new finding about that. Some static analyzers complain
nowadays about this.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko