lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Check return value of of_property_read_u32
From


On 6/28/22 14:27, Linus Walleij wrote:
> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 8:26 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote:
>> On 6/17/22 18:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:20 AM Srinivas Neeli
>>> <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In five different instances the return value of "of_property_read_u32"
>>>> API was neither captured nor checked.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed it by capturing the return value and then checking for any error.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com>
>>>> Addresses-Coverity: "check_return"
>>>
>>> I think the best course of action here is to go and fix Coverity while
>>> marking these as false positives.
>>>
>>> To the idea of castings -- this is not good style and (many?)
>>> maintainers in kernel do not accept such "workaround" for fixing
>>> broken tool.
>>
>> Let's wait for Linus what he will say about it.
>> I can't see nothing wrong about declaring that I am intentionally ignoring
>> return code.
>
> I don't think this patch should be applied.
>
> The problem with static analysis is that such tools have no feeling
> for context at all, and in this case the context makes it pretty
> clear why it is safe to ignore these return values.
>
> But we need to adopt the tool to the code not adopt the code to
> the tool.

ok. No problem. Thanks for discussion.

Thanks,
Michal

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-29 09:34    [W:0.051 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site