linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: yc: Fix the wrong return value

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]

Message-ID: <f5442b45-7dc7-4463-b87a-91381bf28bc3@web.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:28:27 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Venkata Prasad Potturu <venkataprasad.potturu@....com>,
 alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Basavaraj Hiregoudar <Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com>,
 Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Jiawei Wang <me@...ng.link>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 Sunil-kumar Dommati <Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com>,
 Syed Saba Kareem <Syed.SabaKareem@....com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
 Vijendar Mukunda <Vijendar.Mukunda@....com>, end.to.start@...l.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: yc: Fix the wrong return value

>> …
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/amd/yc/acp6x-mach.c
>>> @@ -578,14 +578,19 @@ static int acp6x_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>>       handle = ACPI_HANDLE(pdev->dev.parent);
>>>       ret = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_WOV", NULL, &dmic_status);
>>> -    if (!ACPI_FAILURE(ret))
>>> +    if (!ACPI_FAILURE(ret)) {
>>>           wov_en = dmic_status;
>>> +        if (!wov_en)
>>> +            return -ENODEV;
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        /* Incase of ACPI method read failure then jump to check_dmi_entry */
>>> +        goto check_dmi_entry;
>>> +    }
>>>
>>>       if (is_dmic_enable && wov_en)
>>>           platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &acp6x_card);
>> …
>>
>> Is there a need to adjust another condition check accordingly?
> No Markus, not required.

Can it be that the expression part “&& wov_en” became redundant with the proposed
source code adjustment?

Regards,
Markus