linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] media: synopsys: hdmirx: Fix signedness bug in hdmirx_parse

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47f84b59-0ddb-4386-bc8c-2752d240fdde@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:00:49 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 Dingxian Wen <shawn.wen@...k-chips.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] media: synopsys: hdmirx: Fix signedness bug in
 hdmirx_parse_dt()

On 3/7/25 12:58, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 07/03/2025 10:47, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 3/7/25 12:45, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:36:47PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/25 12:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c b/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c
>>>>> index 4ffc86ad6c35..e0d3fed87a92 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c
>>>>> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ struct snps_hdmirx_dev {
>>>>>  	bool hpd_trigger_level_high;
>>>>>  	bool tmds_clk_ratio;
>>>>>  	bool plugged;
>>>>> -	u32 num_clks;
>>>>> +	int num_clks;
>>>>>  	u32 edid_blocks_written;
>>>>>  	u32 cur_fmt_fourcc;
>>>>>  	u32 color_depth;
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
>>>>
>>>> Would be also good to return the original error code. There is no need
>>>> to check for the < 1 clock, it should be the < 0 check. Can be done in a
>>>> separate patch later. Thanks for the fix!
>>>
>>> I'm not very familiar with th edevm_clk_bulk_get_all() function and it's
>>> not documented.  But clk_bulk_get_all() does return zero, so I can see why
>>> people would be confused.
>>
>> We will take care of it, thanks again.
>>
> 
> I'm confused. Is Dan's patch correct or is more work needed? If more work is
> needed, then I prefer to have a single patch correcting the devm_clk_bulk_get_all()
> handling.

Dan's patch is good, please merge it.

Propagation of original error code that I said about will be additional
improvement.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry