linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

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]

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:45:48 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, 
	mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@...el.com, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

Hello Andy,

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 07:04:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:46:44AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 12:35:25PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > 
> > Is this really true? pcim_iomap_table() calls devres_alloc_node() which
> > might fail if the allocation fails. (Yes, I know
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/627419/, but the rule is still to check for
> > errors, right?)
> 
> We do not add a dead code to the kernel, right?
> 
> > What am I missing?
> 
> Mysterious ways of the twisted PCI devres code.
> Read the above commit message again :-)
> 
> For your convenience I can elaborate. pcim_iomap_table() calls _first_
> devres_find() which _will_ succeed if the pcim_iomap_regions() previously
> succeeded. Does it help to understand how it designed?

I assume you're saying that after pcim_iomap_regions() succeeded it's
already known that pcim_iomap_table() succeeds (because the former
already called the latter).

I'm still concerned here. I agree that error checking might be skipped
if it's clear that no error can happen (the device cannot disappear
between these two calls, can it?), but for me as an uninitiated pci code
reader, I wonder about

	dwc->base = pcim_iomap_table(pci)[0];

without error checking. (OTOH, if pcim_iomap_table() returned NULL, the
"[0]" part is already problematic.)

I'd like to have a code comment here saying that pcim_iomap_table()
won't return NULL.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)