From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Felix Gu" <ustc.gu@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com,
olteanv@gmail.com, vkoul@kernel.org, neil.armstrong@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Use dev_err_probe() in probe
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 15:59:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804155906.EEBAF1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804-rcar-gen2-v2-3-829cb84112ca@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The PHY provider is registered before the driver data is set, creating a race window where PHY lookup can fail.
- [High] The driver saves a scoped device node pointer into a persistent structure without incrementing its reference count, leading to a dangling pointer.
- [High] A Time-Of-Check to Time-Of-Use (TOCTOU) race condition with device tree modifications can lead to an array out-of-bounds access.
--
--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v2 3/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Use dev_err_probe() in probe ---
commit 709d9b8218087abc6526b29b382856eb53ccb3ba
Author: Felix Gu <ustc.gu@gmail.com>
phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Use dev_err_probe() in probe
Convert the error paths in rcar_gen2_phy_probe() to dev_err_probe().
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen2.c b/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen2.c
> index b18727ed41a10..581f6768e2bb2 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen2.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen2.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -388,10 +384,9 @@ static int rcar_gen2_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> channel->selected_phy = -1;
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but could the assignment to
channel->of_node just above this line result in a dangling pointer?
Looking at rcar_gen2_phy_probe(), the loop uses
for_each_child_of_node_scoped(dev->of_node, np) which automatically
decrements the reference count of np at the end of each iteration.
Since channel->of_node = np stores this pointer into the persistent
channel structure without calling of_node_get(np), wouldn't this leave
channel->of_node pointing to freed memory once the scope ends?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is there a risk of an
out-of-bounds array access in this loop?
Earlier in rcar_gen2_phy_probe(), drv->channels is allocated based on
of_get_child_count():
drv->num_channels = of_get_child_count(dev->of_node);
drv->channels = devm_kcalloc(dev, drv->num_channels, ...);
If a dynamic device tree overlay adds a child node concurrently before or
during the for_each_child_of_node_scoped() loop, the loop will iterate
more times than drv->num_channels. Would the assignment
channel = drv->channels + i then write past the end of the allocation?
> error = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", &channel_num);
> - if (error || channel_num >= data->num_channels) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Invalid \"reg\" property\n");
> - return error ?: -EINVAL;
> - }
> + if (error || channel_num >= data->num_channels)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, error ?: -EINVAL,
> + "Invalid \"reg\" property\n");
> channel->select_mask = select_mask[channel_num];
[ ... ]
> @@ -414,10 +408,9 @@ static int rcar_gen2_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(dev, rcar_gen2_phy_xlate);
> - if (IS_ERR(provider)) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to register PHY provider\n");
> - return PTR_ERR(provider);
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(provider))
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(provider),
> + "Failed to register PHY provider\n");
>
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, drv);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the registration order
create a race condition?
The PHY provider is registered via devm_of_phy_provider_register() before
dev_set_drvdata(dev, drv) is called.
If a concurrent deferred probe or module load calls rcar_gen2_phy_xlate()
during this window, it will try to access driver data that hasn't been set
yet. Should dev_set_drvdata() be called before exposing the PHY provider
to the system?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260804-rcar-gen2-v2-0-829cb84112ca@gmail.com?part=3
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 15:24 [PATCH v2 0/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: three cleanups Felix Gu
2026-08-04 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Fix double of_node_put on phy creation failure Felix Gu
2026-08-04 15:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Return -EINVAL for out-of-range channel reg Felix Gu
2026-08-04 15:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] phy: renesas: rcar-gen2: Use dev_err_probe() in probe Felix Gu
2026-08-04 15:59 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260804155906.EEBAF1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=ustc.gu@gmail.com \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.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