Re: [RFC PATCH] iio: ak8975: Make sure chipset is always initialized

[Pandruvada, Srinivas]

On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:40 +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Pandruvada, Srinivas
> <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +Mika
> >
> > On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 13:26 -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 00:25 +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > Daniel Baluta schrieb am 18.12.2014 um 18:16:
> >> > >> When using ACPI, if acpi_match_device fails then chipset enum will be
> >> > >> uninitialized and &ak_def_array[chipset] will point to some bad address.
> >> > >>
> >> I am missing something. You are enumerated over i2c device, which was
> >> created from ACPI PNP resource. There is a valid handle or and the
> >> device has an ACPI companion at the least. If this failing, I have to
> >> check the code for acpi i2c.
> >> Can you check why this check failed? We may have bug in i2c handling.
> 
> You are right about this. Under normal circumstances, if probe is called
> then acpi_match_device will not fail. I even tried to remove the
> device after probe
> but before acpi_match_device, anyhow acpi_match_device was still successful :)
> 
> This is more a matter of code correctness.
> 
> In ak8975_match_acpi_device we have:
> 
> Â       const struct acpi_device_id *id;
> 
> Â       id = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> Â       if (!id)
> Â       Â       return NULL;
> Â       *chipset = (int)id->driver_data;
> 
> Compiler complains on the fact that chipset might be uninitialized
> if this returns NULL, and we shouldn't ignore this warning even this case
> will never happen.
> 
Will this fix?
data->chipset = AK8975;
before
ak8975_match_acpi_device(&client->dev, &data->chipset);

Thanks,
Srinivas 
> We could use some code injection techniques to force acpi_match_device
> to return NULL tough.
> 
> >> > >> This fixes the following compilation warning:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c: In function âak8975_probeâ:
> >> > >> drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c:788:14: warning: âchipsetâ may be used
> >> > >> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> >> > >>   data->def =ak_def_array[chipset];
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Reported-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> ---
> >> > >> This is a RFC because while I'm pretty sure that chipset should be initialized
> >> > >> with AK_MAX_TYPE in ak8975_match_acpi_device, I am not sure if we can live with
> >> > >> a NULL return value of ak8975_match_acpi_device. Current implementation ignores
> >> > >> return value of ak8975_match_acpi_device.
> >> > > This seems to be the actual problem: these _match_acpi_device functions return
> >> > > NULL on failure, and this should be checked for.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, so this would acceptable?
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
> >> > b/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
> >> > index 0d10a4b..68d99e9 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
> >> > @@ -776,8 +776,9 @@ static int ak8975_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >> >                 name = id->name;
> >> >         } else if (ACPI_HANDLE(&client->dev))
> >> >                 name = ak8975_match_acpi_device(&client->dev, &chipset);
> >> > -       else
> >> > -               return -ENOSYS;
> >> > +
> >> > +       if (!name)
> >> > +               return -ENODEV;
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I still have some doubts about return code in case of error.
> >> >
> >> > For ak8975 we use -ENOSYS, but for kxcjk-1013 we use -ENODEV.
> >> >
> >> > I will send a patch after we clear this out.
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> > Daniel.
> >>
> >

N‹§²æ¸›yú²X¬¶ÇvØ–)Þ{.nlj·¥Š{±‘êX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨¾«‘êZ+€Êzf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûÿû®w¥¢¸?™¨è&¢)ßf”ùy§m…á«a¶Úÿ0¶ìå