drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
The pdsfc_get_operations() function returns error pointers, it doesn't
return NULL. However, the "ep_info->operations" pointer should be set
to either a valid pointer or NULL because the rest of the driver checks
for that.
Fixes: 804294d75ac5 ("pds_fwctl: add rpc and query support")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
---
drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c b/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
index c0266fc76797..a097fdde0b55 100644
--- a/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
+++ b/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
@@ -255,6 +255,7 @@ static int pdsfc_validate_rpc(struct pdsfc_dev *pdsfc,
{
struct pds_fwctl_query_data_operation *op_entry;
struct pdsfc_rpc_endpoint_info *ep_info = NULL;
+ struct pds_fwctl_query_data *operations;
struct device *dev = &pdsfc->fwctl.dev;
int i;
@@ -287,13 +288,14 @@ static int pdsfc_validate_rpc(struct pdsfc_dev *pdsfc,
/* query and cache this endpoint's operations */
mutex_lock(&ep_info->lock);
if (!ep_info->operations) {
- ep_info->operations = pdsfc_get_operations(pdsfc,
- &ep_info->operations_pa,
- rpc->in.ep);
- if (!ep_info->operations) {
+ operations = pdsfc_get_operations(pdsfc,
+ &ep_info->operations_pa,
+ rpc->in.ep);
+ if (IS_ERR(operations)) {
mutex_unlock(&ep_info->lock);
- return -ENOMEM;
+ return PTR_ERR(operations);
}
+ ep_info->operations = operations;
}
mutex_unlock(&ep_info->lock);
--
2.47.2
On 3/19/2025 12:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> The pdsfc_get_operations() function returns error pointers, it doesn't
> return NULL. However, the "ep_info->operations" pointer should be set
> to either a valid pointer or NULL because the rest of the driver checks
> for that.
>
> Fixes: 804294d75ac5 ("pds_fwctl: add rpc and query support")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Hi Dan, thanks for this patch. We also have this same fix in the
patchset update that I was expecting to push out today, but you beat me
to it.
Shall I continue with our v4 patchset, or should I now be sending
smaller patches to update from earlier review comments?
Thanks,
sln
> ---
> ---
> drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c b/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
> index c0266fc76797..a097fdde0b55 100644
> --- a/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/fwctl/pds/main.c
> @@ -255,6 +255,7 @@ static int pdsfc_validate_rpc(struct pdsfc_dev *pdsfc,
> {
> struct pds_fwctl_query_data_operation *op_entry;
> struct pdsfc_rpc_endpoint_info *ep_info = NULL;
> + struct pds_fwctl_query_data *operations;
> struct device *dev = &pdsfc->fwctl.dev;
> int i;
>
> @@ -287,13 +288,14 @@ static int pdsfc_validate_rpc(struct pdsfc_dev *pdsfc,
> /* query and cache this endpoint's operations */
> mutex_lock(&ep_info->lock);
> if (!ep_info->operations) {
> - ep_info->operations = pdsfc_get_operations(pdsfc,
> - &ep_info->operations_pa,
> - rpc->in.ep);
> - if (!ep_info->operations) {
> + operations = pdsfc_get_operations(pdsfc,
> + &ep_info->operations_pa,
> + rpc->in.ep);
> + if (IS_ERR(operations)) {
> mutex_unlock(&ep_info->lock);
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + return PTR_ERR(operations);
> }
> + ep_info->operations = operations;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&ep_info->lock);
>
> --
> 2.47.2
>
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:18:31AM -0700, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> On 3/19/2025 12:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > The pdsfc_get_operations() function returns error pointers, it doesn't
> > return NULL. However, the "ep_info->operations" pointer should be set
> > to either a valid pointer or NULL because the rest of the driver checks
> > for that.
> >
> > Fixes: 804294d75ac5 ("pds_fwctl: add rpc and query support")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
>
> Hi Dan, thanks for this patch. We also have this same fix in the patchset
> update that I was expecting to push out today, but you beat me to it.
>
> Shall I continue with our v4 patchset, or should I now be sending smaller
> patches to update from earlier review comments?
>
I don't track how these things are merged. If you were going to fix
it in a v4 patchset then just ignore this patch. Typically in that
case you would fold the fix into the patchset anyway.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 07:26:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:18:31AM -0700, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> > On 3/19/2025 12:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > The pdsfc_get_operations() function returns error pointers, it doesn't
> > > return NULL. However, the "ep_info->operations" pointer should be set
> > > to either a valid pointer or NULL because the rest of the driver checks
> > > for that.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 804294d75ac5 ("pds_fwctl: add rpc and query support")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> >
> > Hi Dan, thanks for this patch. We also have this same fix in the patchset
> > update that I was expecting to push out today, but you beat me to it.
> >
> > Shall I continue with our v4 patchset, or should I now be sending smaller
> > patches to update from earlier review comments?
> >
>
> I don't track how these things are merged. If you were going to fix
> it in a v4 patchset then just ignore this patch. Typically in that
> case you would fold the fix into the patchset anyway.
Right, please just send v4 and include a fix Dan's report.
Thanks,
Jason
On 3/19/2025 9:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 07:26:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:18:31AM -0700, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
>>> On 3/19/2025 12:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The pdsfc_get_operations() function returns error pointers, it doesn't
>>>> return NULL. However, the "ep_info->operations" pointer should be set
>>>> to either a valid pointer or NULL because the rest of the driver checks
>>>> for that.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 804294d75ac5 ("pds_fwctl: add rpc and query support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Hi Dan, thanks for this patch. We also have this same fix in the patchset
>>> update that I was expecting to push out today, but you beat me to it.
>>>
>>> Shall I continue with our v4 patchset, or should I now be sending smaller
>>> patches to update from earlier review comments?
>>>
>>
>> I don't track how these things are merged. If you were going to fix
>> it in a v4 patchset then just ignore this patch. Typically in that
>> case you would fold the fix into the patchset anyway.
>
> Right, please just send v4 and include a fix Dan's report.
Thanks, will do.
sln
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.