[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zn1MRH--5ZWddOVQ@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:25:56 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>
Cc: Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@...s.st.com>,
Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@...s.st.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: stm32: dcmipp: correct error handling in
dcmipp_create_subdevs
Hi Hans,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:17:55PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 24/06/2024 10:41, Alain Volmat wrote:
> > Correct error handling within the dcmipp_create_subdevs by properly
> > decrementing the i counter when releasing the subdeves.
> >
> > Fixes: 28e0f3772296 ("media: stm32-dcmipp: STM32 DCMIPP camera interface driver")
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@...s.st.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmipp/dcmipp-core.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmipp/dcmipp-core.c b/drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmipp/dcmipp-core.c
> > index 4acc3b90d03a..4924ee36cfda 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmipp/dcmipp-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmipp/dcmipp-core.c
> > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static int dcmipp_create_subdevs(struct dcmipp_device *dcmipp)
> > return 0;
> >
> > err_init_entity:
> > - while (i > 0)
> > + while (i-- > 0)
> > dcmipp->pipe_cfg->ents[i - 1].release(dcmipp->entity[i - 1]);
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> I accidentally merged this one, but this patch isn't right.
>
> After this change the [i - 1] indices should be changed to [i].
> If i == 1, then the while condition is true, but now i == 0 in the
> actual statement, so you access out-of-bounds values.
Right. I think the best way to fix this would be to just remove "- 1"
inside the array indices. One could think this as a different bug but of
course with an unpleasant side effect which you get after fixing the first
bug.
>
> I decided to revert it, since it is better to just get stuck in the
> while loop, then to crash.
>
> But a new patch is needed for this.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists