linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpiolib: sanitize the return value of gpio_chip::get

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: <Z7yfTggRrk3K6srs@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 18:33:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpiolib: sanitize the return value of
 gpio_chip::get_direction()

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:52:02AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> 
> As per the API contract, the get_direction() callback can only
> return 0, 1 or a negative error number. Add a wrapper around the callback
> calls that filters out anything else.

...

> +static int gpiochip_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&gc->gpiodev->srcu);
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!gc->get_direction))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	ret = gc->get_direction(gc, offset);
> +	if (ret > 1)

Would it be better to use the respective GPIO*... macro instead of 1?

> +		ret = -EBADE;
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko