Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:46:19 +0200 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: add NULL check on of_match_device() return value |
| |
Le Fri, 7 Jul 2017 01:59:26 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> a écrit :
> Check return value from call to of_match_device() > in order to prevent a NULL pointer dereference. > > In case of NULL print error message and return -ENODEV > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > index 744ab10..ca0ab96 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c > @@ -674,6 +674,11 @@ static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > of_id = of_match_device(vf610_nfc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev); > + if (!of_id) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to match device!\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > +
While this check is functionally correct, this case cannot happen, because this is DT-only driver, and without a valid match in vf610_nfc_dt_ids the dev wouldn't have been probed in the first place.
I'll let Stefan decide whether he wants it or not, but I see no real reason for this extra check.
> nfc->variant = (enum vf610_nfc_variant)of_id->data; > > for_each_available_child_of_node(nfc->dev->of_node, child) {
| |