Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: fix a possible NULL dereference

[LABBE Corentin]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 02:55:00PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 02:45:20PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:54:22PM +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:29:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:26:03AM +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> > > > > > of_match_device could return NULL, and so cause a NULL pointer
> > > > > 
> > > > > No. There is no way that of_match_device() can ever fail. The driver
> > > > > core uses the same table to match the OF device to the driver, so the
> > > > > only case where of_match_device() would return NULL is if no match was
> > > > > found, in which case the tegra_i2c_probe() function would never have
> > > > > been called in the first place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thierry
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In a parallel thread for i2c-rcar, the conclusion was different.
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/12/83
> > > 
> > > The conclusion was the same: there should be no case where this happens.
> > > The example that Uwe gave is hypothetical and not valid DT in the first
> > > place. So instead of chickening out I think it'd be better to just crash
> > > to make sure people fix the DT.
> > 
> > It depends in your trust in the DT. Just because it's not advisable to
> > do something that is not documented usually isn't a good excuse to not
> > handle broken input. That't the case for webserver requests, arguments
> > to system calls and several more. I admit DT is a bit special because
> > you have to assume it's trusted, but still handling errors in a sane way
> > is IMHO nice.
> 
> Given that it's supposed to be provided by firmware and possibly from a
> ROM, crashing might be a better motivation for fixing it than erroring
> out, which people might just ignore or not notice until it's too late.
> 
> > > On a side-note I think that platform_match() should be stricter and do
> > > something like this instead:
> > > 
> > > 	if (dev->of_node) {
> > > 		if (of_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
> > > 			return 1;
> > > 
> > > 		return 0;
> > > 	}
> > That's equivalent to
> > 
> > 	if (dev->of_node)
> > 		return of_driver_match_device(dev, drv);
> > 
> > and was already suggested in the thread referenced from my reply to
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2083641 :-)
> 
> Ah, too many cross-reference =) FWIW:
> 
> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 

Just for be sure, since the thread goes in lot of direction, you ack my patch ?
Perhaps is it better that I resent a version which use of_device_get_match_data() ?

Regards

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/