Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

[Lee Jones]

Hi Alan,

I'm looking at a patch you wrote which can be foudn below at [1].  Are
you sure it's correct to ignore i.e not return -ENOMEM from
platform_device_add_data() in pcf50633_probe()?  I believe if
platform_device_add_data() returns an error we should
platform_device_put() and return immediately.  Can you tell me if you
agree.  If you don't, would you mind explaining to me why please?

Kind regards,
Lee

[1]
commit 18273c5b463d9f98ef81f1a6217a7f4168dd809a
Author: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:   Fri Jul 13 16:43:32 2012 +0100

    mfd: Add missing out of memory check for pcf50633
    
    Resolves-bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44561
    Reported-by: <rucsoftsec@gmail.com>
    Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
    Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/pcf50633-core.c b/drivers/mfd/pcf50633-core.c
index 29c122b..45ce1fb 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/pcf50633-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/pcf50633-core.c
@@ -253,8 +253,13 @@ static int __devinit pcf50633_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
                }
 
                pdev->dev.parent = pcf->dev;
-               platform_device_add_data(pdev, &pdata->reg_init_data[i],
-                                       sizeof(pdata->reg_init_data[i]));
+               if (platform_device_add_data(pdev, &pdata->reg_init_data[i],
+                                       sizeof(pdata->reg_init_data[i])) < 0) {
+                       platform_device_put(pdev);
+                       dev_err(pcf->dev, "Out of memory for regulator parameters %d\n",
+                                                                       i);
+                       continue;
+               }
                pcf->regulator_pdev[i] = pdev;
 
                platform_device_add(pdev);

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

[One Thousand Gnomes]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:53:45 +0100
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> I'm looking at a patch you wrote which can be foudn below at [1].  Are
> you sure it's correct to ignore i.e not return -ENOMEM from
> platform_device_add_data() in pcf50633_probe()?  I believe if
> platform_device_add_data() returns an error we should
> platform_device_put() and return immediately.  Can you tell me if you
> agree.  If you don't, would you mind explaining to me why please?

I made the change to maximise the chance of things booting up ok, but I
agree, its a pointless exercise. If we fail to add the data we should
just chuck it.

Alan

Re: Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:53:45 +0100
> Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Alan,
> > 
> > I'm looking at a patch you wrote which can be foudn below at [1].  Are
> > you sure it's correct to ignore i.e not return -ENOMEM from
> > platform_device_add_data() in pcf50633_probe()?  I believe if
> > platform_device_add_data() returns an error we should
> > platform_device_put() and return immediately.  Can you tell me if you
> > agree.  If you don't, would you mind explaining to me why please?
> 
> I made the change to maximise the chance of things booting up ok, but I
> agree, its a pointless exercise. If we fail to add the data we should
> just chuck it.

Thanks Alan, I'll get a patch out shortly.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog