linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: cs35l56: Accept values greater than 0 as IRQ numbers

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, 19 Jun 2024 10:44:47 +0100
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Simon Trimmer <simont@...nsource.cirrus.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: cs35l56: Accept values greater than 0 as IRQ
 numbers

On 17/06/2024 14:53, Simon Trimmer wrote:
> IRQ lookup functions such as those in ACPI can return error values when
> an IRQ is not defined. The i2c core driver converts the error codes to a
> value of 0 and the SPI bus driver passes them unaltered to client device
> drivers.
> 
> The cs35l56 driver should only accept positive non-zero values as IRQ
> numbers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Trimmer <simont@...nsource.cirrus.com>
> Fixes: 8a731fd37f8b ("ASoC: cs35l56: Move utility functions to shared file")
> ---
>   sound/soc/codecs/cs35l56-shared.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l56-shared.c b/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l56-shared.c
> index 27869e14e9c8..880228f89baf 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l56-shared.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l56-shared.c
> @@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ int cs35l56_irq_request(struct cs35l56_base *cs35l56_base, int irq)
>   {
>   	int ret;
>   
> -	if (!irq)
> +	if (irq < 1)
>   		return 0;
>   
>   	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(cs35l56_base->dev, irq, NULL, cs35l56_irq,

Mark, I don't understand what your objection is.
What is it you want us to do to get this bugfix accepted?