Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Wed, 6 Jun 2018 19:02:03 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH][next] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: add allocation failure checking of saved_vals |
| |
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for > failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using > GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and > propagating this error return down the the caller chain. > > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value") > > Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and restore pinctrl context") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs) > > mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE; > > - if (!pcs->saved_vals) > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) { > pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!pcs->saved_vals) > + return -ENOMEM;
Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition?
Something like
if (!foo) foo = ...malloc(...); if (!foo) return ...
> + } > > switch (pcs->width) { > case 64: > @@ -1649,8 +1652,13 @@ static int pinctrl_single_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, > if (!pcs) > return -EINVAL; > > - if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF) > - pcs_save_context(pcs); > + if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF) { > + int ret; > + > + ret = pcs_save_context(pcs); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + } > > return pinctrl_force_sleep(pcs->pctl); > }
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |