From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Vincent Cloutier" <vincent.cloutier@icloud.com>
Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Propagate status register errors
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 01:31:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260727013104.863351F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260727011319.621794-6-vincent.cloutier@icloud.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Probe failure leaves device interrupts actively enabled on the hardware, potentially causing an interrupt storm.
- [High] Multiple hardware configuration functions ignore the return value of regmap_read, using uninitialized stack variables to write arbitrary values to hardware registers.
- [High] The threaded IRQ handler returns IRQ_HANDLED upon failing to read the device status, defeating the kernel's spurious interrupt detector and risking a hard interrupt storm.
--
--- Patch [5]: [PATCH v4 05/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Propagate status register errors ---
commit bced78410601fcdc0467a660acdbfd2bb2e4527e
Author: Vincent Cloutier <vincent@cloutier.co>
power: supply: max17042_battery: Propagate status register errors
The driver adds error checking for the initial STATUS read and final POR
clear during initialization. A failed read will now propagate the error
instead of ignoring it, and the POR-clear result is returned directly.
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> index 38abd3604643b..9210bdb4d67eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> @@ -908,8 +908,7 @@ static int max17042_init_chip(struct max17042_chip *chip)
> }
>
> /* Init complete, Clear the POR bit */
> - regmap_update_bits(map, MAX17042_STATUS, STATUS_POR_BIT, 0x0);
> - return 0;
> + return regmap_clear_bits(map, MAX17042_STATUS, STATUS_POR_BIT);
> }
>
> static void max17042_set_soc_threshold(struct max17042_chip *chip, u16 off)
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but functions like max17042_set_soc_threshold
and max17042_load_new_capacity_params ignore the return value of regmap_read.
If the I2C read fails, can this lead to uninitialized stack variables
(soc, vfSoc, full_cap0) being bit-shifted and written directly back
to critical hardware registers?
For example:
drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c:max17042_set_soc_threshold() {
...
regmap_read(map, MAX17042_RepSOC, &soc);
soc_tr = (soc + off) << 8;
...
}
[ ... ]
> @@ -1248,7 +1247,10 @@ static int max17042_probe(struct i2c_client *client, struct device *dev, int irq
>
> chip->irq = irq;
>
> - regmap_read(chip->regmap, MAX17042_STATUS, &val);
> + ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, MAX17042_STATUS, &val);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to read status\n");
> +
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but returning here exposes a missing
cleanup step.
If this new read fails, we return an error and the devm framework frees
the IRQ handler. However, earlier in max17042_probe, we enable hardware alerts
with regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap, MAX17042_CONFIG, CFG_ALRT_BIT_ENBL, ...).
Since there is no devm-managed cleanup or manual unwind for this alert
enablement, and the IRQ is requested with IRQF_SHARED, could this leave the
device actively asserting the interrupt line without a registered handler,
resulting in an interrupt storm?
> if (val & STATUS_POR_BIT) {
> ret = devm_delayed_work_autocancel(dev, &chip->work,
> max17042_init_worker);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential problem in
max17042_thread_handler():
drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c:max17042_thread_handler() {
...
ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, MAX17042_STATUS, &val);
if (ret)
return IRQ_HANDLED;
...
}
If regmap_read fails (e.g., due to a transient I2C bus error), the handler
returns IRQ_HANDLED without clearing the interrupt bits on the device.
Since the handler reports success (IRQ_HANDLED) while the physical device
is still asserting the shared interrupt line, does this bypass the kernel's
spurious interrupt detector and risk a hard interrupt storm?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260727011319.621794-1-vincent.cloutier@icloud.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-27 1:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-27 1:12 [PATCH v4 00/11] power: supply: initialize MAX17055 from battery info Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:12 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] power: supply: Add registration init callback Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Separate MAX17055 initialization Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Use bool for init_complete Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Convert initialization to delayed work Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Propagate status register errors Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:31 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Retry failed MAX17055 initialization Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Program MAX17055 EZ Config values Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Follow MAX17055 POR sequence Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Initialize MAX17055 from battery info Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] power: supply: max17042_battery: Honor MAX17055 charge voltage Vincent Cloutier
2026-07-27 1:13 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] dt-bindings: power: supply: max17042: Allow generic power-supply properties Vincent Cloutier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260727013104.863351F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vincent.cloutier@icloud.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox