From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E93A4EB64D9 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 12:45:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=UmJMNYWOyAMPkRNeRSlqkhWBpdpt6txL24H5u4lADL0=; b=hVLm5iYtSRXrh8Kt0chPJNomls 5xGf+7g6kA6BKQNIj7mH8yievxWGs+7m8nuXTwitetVEKVlSagr0xrGpBN9ZtKM+h2hhvszrzaSkw HYkQnoxQNbtrlZTEZfS7Xmu5HbEgjeL7odjYtjxAF/aP81Sm/aaQ/fl6IMWdBcmeuEYF/6Vl2W2Yr OlC5xRS9z7sSGOusaglLvQWDbhQ+tuIK10WfDx+mwCz3s37cwq8NFdaMgVgUHAR5mQ19HAC3B44mt LvQ+kY3shrl943LWGOGOYXX+gsKzhLWwBgkmQpFUCUtfbX2aijnebM3D6DUWqG0ag90o9pF/fd1rL X0BTTpAg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qHOMS-001g0E-0H; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:45:28 +0000 Received: from madras.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qHOMO-001fyg-2Z; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:45:26 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (2-237-20-237.ip236.fastwebnet.it [2.237.20.237]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kholk11) by madras.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FEFB6606FDC; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 13:45:19 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1688647520; bh=wWn6TJpPGJwpnJEW5eOYnGJj8SEgi8uRCntKKcZ2N54=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=feAJ7w3kphSYGpfQQAUINeYeVSxE9Ngfvmhl9z/y7dfTFoy1768rrwezjNtkr3apO O5uf9ofWRFJXIsZohnA/QqIfZ0qdZNdSHmdKTg2NqYflCnzvst2VG3lJchF9d5cQpw jfe/cWyyPn+kA9H3l8pSY/Krta7xx4tyZYgIlWYv46ZqGpSSVBXjk8LknPV0F6Lfub keCmq1z9CDF3vckMRKaJZoF0tApfmyYlAQKnt5nNyCFhrO83tJ1zFM4jLArLukt+mb eJqn8yggvHs+uaNc0/ITUSwng2g/teb5HMY+Y+GR2UKnyUEbdPMVwRYC1GNnMu/vFK E4kpJEhSsLscQ== Message-ID: <152b6912-ce2f-5580-1e2a-550a6fd7e6ed@collabora.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:45:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: mtk_disp: fix disp_pwm coverity issue To: Alexandre Mergnat , Shuijing Li , thierry.reding@gmail.com, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, matthias.bgg@gmail.com Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@mediatek.com, jitao.shi@mediatek.com References: <20230706100454.28998-1-shuijing.li@mediatek.com> <55c3a448-e6c6-5e04-2cee-b2a18f0033e3@baylibre.com> Content-Language: en-US From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno In-Reply-To: <55c3a448-e6c6-5e04-2cee-b2a18f0033e3@baylibre.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230706_054524_983596_C9D0C922 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.18 ) X-BeenThere: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+linux-mediatek=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Il 06/07/23 14:29, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto: > > > On 06/07/2023 12:04, Shuijing Li wrote: >> There is a coverity issue in the original mtk_disp_pwm_get_state() >> function. In function call DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP, division by expression >> Which may be zero has undefined behavior. >> Fix this accordingly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shuijing Li >> --- >>   drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c | 9 ++++++++- >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c >> index 79e321e96f56..ca00058a6ef4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mtk-disp.c >> @@ -196,6 +196,14 @@ static int mtk_disp_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, >>           return err; >>       } >> +    rate = clk_get_rate(mdp->clk_main); >> +    if (rate <= 0) { >> +        dev_err(chip->dev, "Can't get rate: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(rate)); >> +        clk_disable_unprepare(mdp->clk_mm); >> +        clk_disable_unprepare(mdp->clk_main); >> +        return err; >> +    } >> + >>       /* >>        * Apply DISP_PWM_DEBUG settings to choose whether to enable or disable >>        * registers double buffer and manual commit to working register before >> @@ -206,7 +214,6 @@ static int mtk_disp_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, >>                        mdp->data->bls_debug_mask, >>                        mdp->data->bls_debug_mask); >> -    rate = clk_get_rate(mdp->clk_main); >>       con0 = readl(mdp->base + mdp->data->con0); >>       con1 = readl(mdp->base + mdp->data->con1); >>       pwm_en = readl(mdp->base + DISP_PWM_EN); > > IMHO, it should be done int the function `mtk_disp_pwm_apply` too. > Do you agree ? > I think that realistically this will never happen. We're getting the clk_main clock's handle at probe time (or fail and get out), then the PWM clock never has the CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE flag, as there wouldn't be any reason to not cache the rates for this clock. But even if we had the CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE flag, it wouldn't change much, as our validation actually happens at probe time... This means that our call to clk_get_rate is guaranteed to have a not NULL pointer to this clock's `struct clk_core` and, unless the declaration of this clock in the clock controller driver was wrong, for it, or for its parent, the branch... if (!core->num_parents || core->parent) return core->rate; ...is always satisfied, so, in the end, this instance of clk_get_rate() can't really return zero. If you got such an issue, I suggest to check what the problem is, as it is likely to be outside of this driver. ...that, besides the fact that the proposed code is incorrect, as clk_get_rate() returns an `unsigned long`, so `rate` can never be less than zero, anyway. Cheers, Angelo