[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: core-smbus: fix a potential missing-check bug
Hi Peter,

> >> In i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(), the function i2c_transfer() is invoked to
> >> transfer i2c messages. The number of actual transferred messages is
> >> returned and saved to 'status'. If 'status' is negative, that means an
> >> error occurred during the transfer process. In that case, the value of
> >> 'status' is an error code to indicate the reason of the transfer failure.
> >> In most cases, i2c_transfer() can transfer 'num' messages with no error.
> >> And so 'status' == 'num'. However, due to unexpected errors, it is probable
> >> that only partial messages are transferred by i2c_transfer(). As a result,
> >> 'status' != 'num'. This special case is not checked after the invocation of
> >> i2c_transfer() and can potentially lead to unexpected issues in the
> >> following execution since it is expected that 'status' == 'num'.
> >>
> >> This patch checks the return value of i2c_transfer() and returns an error
> >> code -EIO if the number of actual transferred messages 'status' is not
> >> equal to 'num'.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang <>
> >
> > Applied to for-current, thanks!
> >
> I meant to comment here but got side-tracked and never got around to it.
> But see e.g. [1] and [2] for drivers that will not be happy with this
> change. Maybe there are more of those? I did a scan of the drivers in
> algos/ and busses/, but there are drivers all over the tree that
> implements .master_xfer that I have not audited. Who knows what further
> problems this patch will reveal? So, maybe we should be a bit
> conservative and only WARN as a first step?

I came to the conclusion: yes and no.

I think this patch is correct, so it is good to have. But true, it will
expose if other drivers have implemented the return value wrongly. So, I
removed this patch from for-current and plan to include it in for-next
instead if we can agree on that being a good way forward. That will
allow for one full cycle of testing and fixing the issues found. And
hopefully I have time to write a small coccinelle rule to find if
constant values are returned in a function declared as master_xfer.

> PS. Also busses/i2c-rcar.c seems like it might return a short "success"
> for some sequence of events. But I'm not sure about that one...

What do you mean with "short success for some sequence" here?



[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-15 10:59    [W:0.076 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site