Re: [PATCH] clk: check ops pointer on clock register

[Jerome Brunet]

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:03 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/18, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > Nothing really prevents a provider from (trying to) register a clock
> > without providing the clock ops structure.
> > 
> > We do check the individual fields before using them, but not the
> > structure pointer itself. This may have the usual nasty consequences when
> > the pointer is dereferenced, mostly likely when checking one the field
> > during the initialization.
> 
> Yes, that nasty consequence should be a kernel oops,

Precisely

> and the
> developer should notice that before submitting the driver for
> inclusion. 

Agreed. But people may make mistakes, which is why (at least partly) we
do checks, isn't it ?

> I don't think we really care to return an error here
> if this happens.
> 

I don't understand why we would let a oops happen when can catch the error
properly ?