| Message ID | 20151112182657.GA19785@dtor-ws (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
On 11/12/2015 08:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Check that IRQ number passed to dev_pm_set_wake_irq and > dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq is valid (not negative) before accepting it. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > --- > > My recent change to i2c core introduced a code path that led to calling > dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&client->dev, -ENOENT), which succeeded but > obviously did the wrong thing. Checking the IRQ and bailing out early > would have helped noticing this issue earlier. > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > index eb6e674..0d77cd6 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > struct wake_irq *wirq; > int err; > > + if (irq < 0) <= 0 ? > + return -EINVAL; > + > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!wirq) > return -ENOMEM; > @@ -167,6 +170,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > struct wake_irq *wirq; > int err; > > + if (irq < 0) > + return -EINVAL; > + > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!wirq) > return -ENOMEM; >
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:41:55PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 11/12/2015 08:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >Check that IRQ number passed to dev_pm_set_wake_irq and > >dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq is valid (not negative) before accepting it. > > > >Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > >--- > > > >My recent change to i2c core introduced a code path that led to calling > >dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&client->dev, -ENOENT), which succeeded but > >obviously did the wrong thing. Checking the IRQ and bailing out early > >would have helped noticing this issue earlier. > > > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >index eb6e674..0d77cd6 100644 > >--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >@@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > > struct wake_irq *wirq; > > int err; > > > >+ if (irq < 0) > > <= 0 ? Maybe. I am still confused whether we treat 0 as invalid or not. > > >+ return -EINVAL; > >+ > > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!wirq) > > return -ENOMEM; > >@@ -167,6 +170,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > > struct wake_irq *wirq; > > int err; > > > >+ if (irq < 0) > >+ return -EINVAL; > >+ > > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!wirq) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > -- > regards, > -grygorii
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:52:11 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:41:55PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > On 11/12/2015 08:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > >Check that IRQ number passed to dev_pm_set_wake_irq and > > >dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq is valid (not negative) before accepting it. > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > >--- > > > > > >My recent change to i2c core introduced a code path that led to calling > > >dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&client->dev, -ENOENT), which succeeded but > > >obviously did the wrong thing. Checking the IRQ and bailing out early > > >would have helped noticing this issue earlier. > > > > > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 6 ++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > >diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > >index eb6e674..0d77cd6 100644 > > >--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > >+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > >@@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > > > struct wake_irq *wirq; > > > int err; > > > > > >+ if (irq < 0) > > > > <= 0 ? > > Maybe. I am still confused whether we treat 0 as invalid or not. Well, it all boils down to whether or not IRQ 0 may be a valid wakeup IRQ on any architectures. In any case, though, we can add that check later, so I'll apply the patch as is. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" 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/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index eb6e674..0d77cd6 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) struct wake_irq *wirq; int err; + if (irq < 0) + return -EINVAL; + wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); if (!wirq) return -ENOMEM; @@ -167,6 +170,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) struct wake_irq *wirq; int err; + if (irq < 0) + return -EINVAL; + wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); if (!wirq) return -ENOMEM;
Check that IRQ number passed to dev_pm_set_wake_irq and dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq is valid (not negative) before accepting it. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> --- My recent change to i2c core introduced a code path that led to calling dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&client->dev, -ENOENT), which succeeded but obviously did the wrong thing. Checking the IRQ and bailing out early would have helped noticing this issue earlier. drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)