Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] mfd: mfd-core: Protect against NULL call-back function pointer

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Daniel Thompson wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If a child device calls mfd_cell_{en,dis}able() without an appropriate
> > call-back being set, we are likely to encounter a panic.  Avoid this
> > by adding suitable checking.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > index 8126665bb2d8..90b43b44a15a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ int mfd_cell_enable(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
> >  	int err = 0;
> >  
> > +	if (!cell->enable) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "No .enable() call-back registered\n");
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* only call enable hook if the cell wasn't previously enabled */
> >  	if (atomic_inc_return(cell->usage_count) == 1)
> >  		err = cell->enable(pdev);
> > @@ -45,6 +50,11 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
> >  	int err = 0;
> >  
> > +	if (!cell->enable) {
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Cancel the R-B: ;-). Shouldn't this be !cell->disable() ?

Yes. Looks like a C/P error.

Will fix and add your R-b.

-- 
Lee Jones [æçæ]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog