linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad9467: Replace PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() in ad9467

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: <d2b3fe8b-9f86-4b39-ae95-399cb7da685a@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 21:07:23 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Salah Triki <salah.triki@...il.com>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad9467: Replace PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() in
 ad9467_reset()

On 8/6/25 8:39 PM, Salah Triki wrote:
> PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() returns 0 if the argument is NULL, which can hide real
> issues when the caller expects an ERR_PTR on failure. Use a ternary
> expression instead to return the appropriate error code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Salah Triki <salah.triki@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/ad9467.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad9467.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad9467.c
> index f7a9f46ea0dc..70aee2666ff1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad9467.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad9467.c
> @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ static int ad9467_reset(struct device *dev)
>  
>  	gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>  	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(gpio))
> -		return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(gpio);
> +		return gpio ? PTR_ERR(gpio) : -ENODEV;
>  
>  	fsleep(1);
>  	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(gpio, 0);

The existing code looks correct to me. The reset gpio is optional
so early return of 0 when there is no gpio seems fine. Changing it
to return an error could break existing users since it will cause
probe to fail.

Also, if the original intention was to make the gpio required, then
it should just not use devm_gpiod_get_optional() and simplify the
whole thing. But I don't think that was the intention.