| Message ID | 1447171030-15056-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > The driver doesn't report an error message if the ACPI tables are missing > the num-gpios property (which indicates how many GPIOs there are on this > SOC), and it didn't check to ensure that the mallocs didn't fail. > > Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> Waiting for Björn's ACK on this. And I suspect Arnd would be interested to know if you are doing ACPI on something that is certainly not a server-class hardware. Because you shouldn't. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Linus Walleij wrote: > And I suspect Arnd would be interested to know if you are doing > ACPI on something that is certainly not a server-class hardware. > Because you shouldn't. This driver is for the TLMM pin control device on Qualcomm's ARM64 Server chip.
On Tuesday 17 November 2015 14:33:49 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > The driver doesn't report an error message if the ACPI tables are missing > > the num-gpios property (which indicates how many GPIOs there are on this > > SOC), and it didn't check to ensure that the mallocs didn't fail. > > > > Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> > > Waiting for Björn's ACK on this. > > And I suspect Arnd would be interested to know if you are doing > ACPI on something that is certainly not a server-class hardware. > Because you shouldn't. > It's more fun just watching this really. No comment. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> And I suspect Arnd would be interested to know if you are doing >> ACPI on something that is certainly not a server-class hardware. >> Because you shouldn't. > > This driver is for the TLMM pin control device on Qualcomm's ARM64 Server > chip. Ohhh sweet. OK then. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue 10 Nov 07:57 PST 2015, Timur Tabi wrote: > The driver doesn't report an error message if the ACPI tables are missing > the num-gpios property (which indicates how many GPIOs there are on this > SOC), and it didn't check to ensure that the mallocs didn't fail. > > Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > The driver doesn't report an error message if the ACPI tables are missing > the num-gpios property (which indicates how many GPIOs there are on this > SOC), and it didn't check to ensure that the mallocs didn't fail. > > Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> Patch applied with Björn's review tag. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-qdf2xxx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-qdf2xxx.c index e9ff3bc..f448534 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-qdf2xxx.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-qdf2xxx.c @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ static struct msm_pinctrl_soc_data qdf2xxx_pinctrl; +/* A reasonable limit to the number of GPIOS */ +#define MAX_GPIOS 256 + static int qdf2xxx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct pinctrl_pin_desc *pins; @@ -42,11 +45,13 @@ static int qdf2xxx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) /* Query the number of GPIOs from ACPI */ ret = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "num-gpios", &num_gpios); - if (ret < 0) + if (ret < 0) { + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "missing num-gpios property\n"); return ret; + } - if (!num_gpios) { - dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "missing num-gpios property\n"); + if (!num_gpios || num_gpios > MAX_GPIOS) { + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "invalid num-gpios property\n"); return -ENODEV; } @@ -55,6 +60,9 @@ static int qdf2xxx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) groups = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num_gpios, sizeof(struct msm_pingroup), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!pins || !groups) + return -ENOMEM; + for (i = 0; i < num_gpios; i++) { pins[i].number = i;
The driver doesn't report an error message if the ACPI tables are missing the num-gpios property (which indicates how many GPIOs there are on this SOC), and it didn't check to ensure that the mallocs didn't fail. Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-qdf2xxx.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)