| Message ID | 20170707065926.GA25776@embeddedgus |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Boris Brezillon |
| Headers | show |
Le Fri, 7 Jul 2017 01:59:26 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> a écrit : > Check return value from call to of_match_device() > in order to prevent a NULL pointer dereference. > > In case of NULL print error message and return -ENODEV > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > index 744ab10..ca0ab96 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > @@ -674,6 +674,11 @@ static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > of_id = of_match_device(vf610_nfc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev); > + if (!of_id) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to match device!\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + While this check is functionally correct, this case cannot happen, because this is DT-only driver, and without a valid match in vf610_nfc_dt_ids the dev wouldn't have been probed in the first place. I'll let Stefan decide whether he wants it or not, but I see no real reason for this extra check. > nfc->variant = (enum vf610_nfc_variant)of_id->data; > > for_each_available_child_of_node(nfc->dev->of_node, child) {
On 07/17/2017 10:46 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Le Fri, 7 Jul 2017 01:59:26 -0500, > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> a écrit : > >> Check return value from call to of_match_device() >> in order to prevent a NULL pointer dereference. >> >> In case of NULL print error message and return -ENODEV >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c >> index 744ab10..ca0ab96 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c >> @@ -674,6 +674,11 @@ static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> of_id = of_match_device(vf610_nfc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev); >> + if (!of_id) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to match device!\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + > > While this check is functionally correct, this case cannot happen, > because this is DT-only driver, and without a valid match in > vf610_nfc_dt_ids the dev wouldn't have been probed in the first place. > > I'll let Stefan decide whether he wants it or not, but I see no real > reason for this extra check. So how did you trigger the issue in the first place ?
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c index 744ab10..ca0ab96 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c @@ -674,6 +674,11 @@ static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } of_id = of_match_device(vf610_nfc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev); + if (!of_id) { + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to match device!\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } + nfc->variant = (enum vf610_nfc_variant)of_id->data; for_each_available_child_of_node(nfc->dev->of_node, child) {
Check return value from call to of_match_device() in order to prevent a NULL pointer dereference. In case of NULL print error message and return -ENODEV Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)