linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] pinctrl: Implementation of the generic scmi-pinctrl driver

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: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 21:10:25 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
	Oleksii Moisieiev <oleksii_moisieiev@...m.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] pinctrl: Implementation of the generic
 scmi-pinctrl driver

Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 08:15:17PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) kirjoitti:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> 
> scmi-pinctrl driver implements pinctrl driver interface and using
> SCMI protocol to redirect messages from pinctrl subsystem SDK to
> SCMI platform firmware, which does the changes in HW.

..

> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/seq_file.h>
> +#include <linux/scmi_protocol.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>

Use IWYU principle. There are missing header inclusions and/or forward
declarations.

..

> +struct scmi_pinctrl_funcs {
> +	unsigned int num_groups;
> +	const char **groups;
> +};

This is repeating struct pinfunction. Why can't the latter be used?

..

> +err_free:
> +	devm_kfree(pmx->dev, groups);

Why?!

This is 99.9% that the initial allocation must not be devm. 

..

> +	*p_config_value = kcalloc(num_configs, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);

sizeof(**p_config_value)?

> +	*p_config_type = kcalloc(num_configs,
> +				 sizeof(enum scmi_pinctrl_conf_type),

sizeof(**p_config_type)?

> +				 GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +	if (!*p_config_value || !*p_config_type) {
> +		kfree(*p_config_value);
> +		kfree(*p_config_type);
> +		return -ENOMEM;

Why to allocate / free memory in the case when you know that the first one
failed?

> +	}

..

> +static int pinctrl_scmi_get_pins(struct scmi_pinctrl *pmx,
> +				 struct pinctrl_desc *desc)
> +{
> +	struct pinctrl_pin_desc *pins;
> +	unsigned int npins;
> +	int ret, i;
> +
> +	npins = pinctrl_ops->count_get(pmx->ph, PIN_TYPE);
> +	pins = devm_kmalloc_array(pmx->dev, npins, sizeof(*pins), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pins)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < npins; i++) {
> +		pins[i].number = i;
> +		ret = pinctrl_ops->name_get(pmx->ph, i, PIN_TYPE, &pins[i].name);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return dev_err_probe(pmx->dev, ret,
> +					     "Can't get name for pin %d", i);
> +	}
> +
> +	desc->npins = npins;
> +	desc->pins = pins;
> +	dev_dbg(pmx->dev, "got pins %d", npins);

%u

> +	return 0;
> +}

..

> +	pinctrl_ops = handle->devm_protocol_get(sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_PINCTRL,
> +						&ph);

One line.

> +	if (IS_ERR(pinctrl_ops))
> +		return PTR_ERR(pinctrl_ops);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko