linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] media: qcom: camss: Decouple VFE from CSID

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: Mon, 13 May 2024 18:48:31 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: "Gjorgji Rosikopulos (Consultant)" <quic_grosikop@...cinc.com>,
 Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>, rfoss@...nel.org,
 todor.too@...il.com, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
 mchehab@...nel.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
 hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, quic_hariramp@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] media: qcom: camss: Decouple VFE from CSID

On 13/05/2024 17:26, Gjorgji Rosikopulos (Consultant) wrote:
>>> +static void __iomem
>>> +*vfe_parent_dev_ops_get_base_address(struct camss *camss, int id)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (id < camss->res->vfe_num) {
>>> +        struct vfe_device *vfe = &camss->vfe[id];
>>> +
>>> +        return vfe->base;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return NULL;
>> I can find code snippets above like
>>
>>      if (IS_ERR(csid->base))
>>          ...
>>
>> So, is it really a good idea to return NULL on error? Probably it might
>> be better
>> to return a reasonable error to the caller.
> As general rule i agree. But here either we have address or not,
> i dont see the reason to return an error code. Also i dont see what
> caller will do if he gets error code instead of NULL.
> I am refering in particular this case. If we have different error paths
> of failiure maybe it will more sense.

I don't see a compelling reason to change the submitted code. I'd leave 
well-enough alone for v4.

Please keep changes for V4 restricted to formatting/line indentation/SPDX.

I don't want to have to reverify all of this code unless a bug is found.

---
bod