linux-kernel - Re: [bug report] regulator: s2mps11: add S2MPG10 regulator

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: <13e12c2bf5e5396e3971137e4ab74e15b38d4b78.camel@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 14:07:35 +0000
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel
	 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report] regulator: s2mps11: add S2MPG10 regulator

Hi Dan,

On Mon, 2026-02-09 at 12:45 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> [ Smatch checking is paused while we raise funding. #SadFace
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/aTaiGSbWZ9DJaGo7@stanley.mountain/ -dan ]
> 
> Hello André Draszik,
> 
> Commit a2b8b9f33ce3 ("regulator: s2mps11: add S2MPG10 regulator")
> from Jan 22, 2026 (linux-next), leads to the following Smatch static
> checker warning:
> 
> 	drivers/regulator/s2mps11.c:483 s2mpg10_of_parse_cb()
> 	warn: off by one 'ext_control' == ARRAY_SIZE()?
> 
> drivers/regulator/s2mps11.c
>     458         if (of_property_read_u32(np, "samsung,ext-control", &ext_control))
>     459                 return 0;
>     460 
>     461         switch (s2mps11->dev_type) {
>     462         case S2MPG10:
>     463                 switch (desc->id) {
>     464                 case S2MPG10_BUCK1 ... S2MPG10_BUCK7:
>     465                 case S2MPG10_BUCK10:
>     466                 case S2MPG10_LDO3 ... S2MPG10_LDO19:
>     467                         if (ext_control > S2MPG10_EXTCTRL_TCXO_ON2)
>     468                                 return -EINVAL;
>     469                         break;
>     470 
>     471                 case S2MPG10_LDO20:
>     472                         if (ext_control < S2MPG10_EXTCTRL_LDO20M_EN2 ||
>     473                             ext_control > S2MPG10_EXTCTRL_LDO20M_EN)
>     474                                 return -EINVAL;
>     475                         break;
>     476 
>     477                 default:
>     478                         return -EINVAL;
>     479                 }
>     480 
>     481                 if (ext_control > ARRAY_SIZE(ext_control_s2mpg10))
> 
> This should be >= ARRAY_SIZE().  Although the earlier checks prevent an
> out of bounds access, it's still worth fixing the sanity check.

Thanks, yes. Although this was on purpose to avoid duplicated checks. I'd say
this test could be removed altogether as it's just confusing and useless.

Cheers,
Andre'