| Message ID | 20190325204823.5428-1-kjlu@umn.edu (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: check return value of idr_find | expand |
On 25/03/2019 20:48, Kangjie Lu wrote: > Thanks for Steven Price's review of this patch. In the current code, There's no need to include a "thanks" message in the commit message - the "Reviewed-by" tag is sufficient. Please also remember to include an appropriate version tag in the subject - this should be "v2". Thanks, Steve > idr_find won't return NULL because the SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE id must > exist. However, it might return NULL in the future code if the check > is on another node while processing the children in subsequent calls > to scmi_mbox_chan_setup(). > Therefore, the patch conservatively checks the return value and > returns -EINVAL when it indeed failed. > > Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu> > Reviewed-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > index 8f952f2f1a29..35faa203d549 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > @@ -709,6 +709,8 @@ scmi_mbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_info *info, struct device *dev, int prot_id) > > if (scmi_mailbox_check(np)) { > cinfo = idr_find(&info->tx_idr, SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE); > + if (!cinfo) > + return -EINVAL; > goto idr_alloc; > } > >
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 03:48:22PM -0500, Kangjie Lu wrote: You should mark this v2 id you changed any code or commit message or added any tags. Just FYI for future. > Thanks for Steven Price's review of this patch. In the current code, > idr_find won't return NULL because the SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE id must > exist. However, it might return NULL in the future code if the check > is on another node while processing the children in subsequent calls > to scmi_mbox_chan_setup(). I don't understand the reference here to future code here. If you have out of tree code that results in such a scenario, please share or provide the details on that. As I mentioned in previous mail, I would bail out much earlier if SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE is not allocated IDR and not reach to this point. We continue even if scmi_create_protocol_device fails for few child devices. -- Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c index 8f952f2f1a29..35faa203d549 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c @@ -709,6 +709,8 @@ scmi_mbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_info *info, struct device *dev, int prot_id) if (scmi_mailbox_check(np)) { cinfo = idr_find(&info->tx_idr, SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE); + if (!cinfo) + return -EINVAL; goto idr_alloc; }