linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: s2mps11: Check of_clk_add_hw

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]

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:40:10 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Aleksandr Aprelkov <aaprelkov@...rgate.com>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: s2mps11: Check of_clk_add_hw_provider() result

On 01/04/2024 12:38, Aleksandr Aprelkov wrote:
> There is no check if error occurs in clock provider registration.

No, instead explain why there should be a check.

> 
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> 
> Fixes: b228fad50c00 ("clk: s2mps11: Migrate to clk_hw based OF and registration APIs")
> Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Aprelkov <aaprelkov@...rgate.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> index 38c456540d1b..f9ce413b6c02 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> @@ -187,8 +187,10 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	clk_data->num = S2MPS11_CLKS_NUM;
> -	of_clk_add_hw_provider(s2mps11_clks->clk_np, of_clk_hw_onecell_get,
> +	ret = of_clk_add_hw_provider(s2mps11_clks->clk_np, of_clk_hw_onecell_get,
>  			       clk_data);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto err_reg;

I really do not understand why you are doing this. This SVACE in the
past was creating really fake reports and we were complaining multiple
times that you should fix your tool.

NAK for such explanation.

Best regards,
Krzysztof