On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:30:23PM +0000, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 12/17/2012 04:51 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> +static int __devinit gpioblock_of_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct device_node *block;
> >> + unsigned *gpios;
> >> + int ngpio;
> >> + int ret;
> >> + struct gpio_block *gb;
> >> +
> >> + for_each_available_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, block) {
> >> + int i;
> >> +
> >> + ngpio = of_gpio_count(block);
> >> + gpios = kzalloc(ngpio * sizeof(*gpios), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > What if the block node is malformed? ngpio might be -ENOENT or -EINVAL.
>
> AFAICS, of_gpio_count() always returns at least 0. Both if
> CONFIG_OF_GPIO is y, m or n. And called of_gpio_named_count() also
> currently doesn't return error values. Further, other drivers using
> of_gpio_count() don't expect or catch <0.
Whoops. I'd managed to misread the logic in of_gpio_named_count, sorry.
> However, it's reasonable to guard against of_gpio_count() < 1 since
> probing without provided blocks should be void.
>
> Will change this for the next patch update together with your leakage
> findings.
>
> Thanks for reporting!
>
> Roland
Sounds good!
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
