Re: [PATCH v2] leds: lp5860: Return an error for an out-of-range 'reg' property

From: Lee Jones

Date: Thu Jul 02 2026 - 09:49:47 EST


Please consider / reply to these.

/* Sashiko Automation: Reviewed (3 Findings) */

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026, Mert Seftali wrote:

> lp5860_iterate_subleds() checks the result of reading the "reg" property
> and the channel range in a single condition:
>
> if (ret < 0 || channel > LP5860_MAX_LED)
>
> When fwnode_property_read_u32() succeeds but the channel is out of range,
> ret is 0, so the error path passes 0 to dev_err_probe() and returns 0 -
> an out-of-range "reg" is silently accepted instead of rejected. The
> shared "'reg' property is missing" message is also inaccurate when the
> property is present but out of range.
>
> Split the two cases: report a read failure with if (ret), and reject an
> out-of-range channel with -EINVAL. Each case now has its own accurate
> error message.
>
> Fixes: 3daf2c4ef82b ("leds: Add support for TI LP5860 LED driver chip")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202605210624.3gcr3prk-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> Signed-off-by: Mert Seftali <mertsftl@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2 (per Lee Jones review):
> - Split the combined read/range test into separate checks: use if(ret)
> for the read failure, and reject an out-of-range channel with -EINVAL.
> - Give each case its own accurate message instead of the shared
> "missing" one, and drop the nested "if (ret >= 0)".
>
> drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c
> index fd0e2f6e6e0f..bc59be87b08f 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c
> @@ -114,13 +114,21 @@ static int lp5860_iterate_subleds(struct lp5860_led *led, struct led_init_data *
> }
>
> ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(led_node, "reg", &channel);
> - if (ret < 0 || channel > LP5860_MAX_LED) {
> + if (ret) {
> dev_err_probe(led->chip->dev, ret,
> - "%pfwP: 'reg' property is missing. Skipping.\n", led_node);
> + "%pfwP: Cannot read 'reg' property. Skipping.\n", led_node);

This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but while reviewing the driver
I noticed a double unlock in lp5860_device_init():

drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c:lp5860_device_init() {
...
mutex_lock(&lp->lock);
ret = regmap_update_bits(lp->regmap, LP5860_REG_DEV_INITIAL,
LP5860_MODE_MASK,
LP5860_MODE_1 << LP5860_MODE_SHIFT);
if (ret)
goto err_disable;
mutex_unlock(&lp->lock);

ret = lp5860_init_dt(lp);
if (ret)
goto err_disable;

return 0;

err_disable:
mutex_unlock(&lp->lock);
...
}



[Severity: High]
If lp5860_init_dt() fails, doesn't the jump to err_disable result in
calling mutex_unlock() on an already unlocked mutex?


This is also a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential
use-after-destroy involving the same mutex in the removal path:

drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-spi.c:lp5860_remove() {
...
mutex_destroy(&lp5860->lock);

lp5860_device_remove(&spi->dev);
}

Calling lp5860_device_remove() ends up taking the lock again:

drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c:lp5860_device_remove() {
...
lp5860_chip_enable(lp, LP5860_CHIP_DISABLE);
}

drivers/leds/rgb/leds-lp5860-core.c:lp5860_chip_enable() {
guard(mutex)(&lp->lock);
return regmap_write(lp->regmap, LP5860_REG_CHIP_EN, enable);
}



[Severity: High]
Does this sequence result in lp5860_chip_enable() locking a mutex that
was just destroyed by lp5860_remove()?

> fwnode_handle_put(led_node);
> return ret;
> }
>
> + if (channel > LP5860_MAX_LED) {
> + dev_err_probe(led->chip->dev, -EINVAL,
> + "%pfwP: 'reg' %u is out of range. Skipping.\n",
> + led_node, channel);
> + fwnode_handle_put(led_node);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> led->mc_cdev.subled_info[subled].color_index = color_index;
> led->mc_cdev.subled_info[subled].channel = channel;
> ret = lp5860_led_init(led, init_data->fwnode, channel);
> --
> 2.54.0
>
>

--
Lee Jones