lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] mux: mux-core: Add NULL check for dev->of_node
From
Date
On 2017-07-09 01:12, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>
> On 7/8/2017 2:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-07-07 23:46, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> If dev->of_node is NULL, then calling mux_control_get()
>>> function can lead to NULL pointer exception. So adding
>>> a NULL check for dev->of_node.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>> Do you have a driver that might call mux_control_get and not have any
>> of_node?
> For non-device tree drivers, this case is valid. I hit this issue when I
> was working on Intel USB MUX driver.
>> If not, I don't see the point of this check.
> Since this is an API for other consumers, I think its better to have
> some sanity checks.
>
> If a non device tree driver call this API , I think its better to fail
> with some error no instead of creating null pointer exception.

Is it? When authoring a new driver, and you make some error like this, why
is a "nice" error better than a big fat fail? If you get a null deref,
you will presumably also get a call stack etc, which will help you find
where you made the error, w/o adding a bunch of traces to find out exactly
what you did wrong.

So, I'm skeptic...

Cheers,
peda

>>
>> Cheers,
>> peda
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mux/mux-core.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> * Removed dummy new line.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> index 90b8995..924c983 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> @@ -438,6 +438,9 @@ struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
>>> int index = 0;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> + if (!np)
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>> +
>>> if (mux_name) {
>>> index = of_property_match_string(np, "mux-control-names",
>>> mux_name);
>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-09 09:09    [W:0.057 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site