Re: [PATCH] eeepc-laptop: remove possible use of uninitialized value

Darren Hart
2014-09-10T03:33:18Z

On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:50:08AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 23:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 05, 2014 07:17:57 PM Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
> > > > @@ -278,12 +276,13 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
> > > > struct eeepc_laptop *eeepc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > int rv, value;
> > > >
> > > > - rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
> > > > - if (rv > 0)
> > > > - value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
> > > > + rv = parse_arg(buf, &value);
> > > > + if (rv < 0)
> > > > + return rv;
> > > > + value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
> > > > if (value < 0)
> > >
> > > I suppose it's harmless, but it would be more explicit to reuse rv here instead
> > > of value.
>
> Fine with me.
>
> > > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > And as with Frans' version, I suggest propogating the error. We're talking about
> > > a missing/invalid ACPI control method name here, ENODEV seems approprirate.
> > >
> > > Rafael, do you have a strong preference about what to return in such an event?
> >
> > No, I don't, although -ENXIO could be used here too.
>
> If you could say what value you'd like best I'll resend using that
> value. (I don't know what the effect is of using a specific error here,
> so I guess I'll have to bluff about it in the commit explanation.)

First, I would prefer we propogate the error code rather than remap it.

We could consider changing what the callee returns...

#define EIO 5 /* I/O error */
#define ENXIO 6 /* No such device or address */
#define ENODEV 19 /* No such device */

Of those, ENXIO seems like the most appropriate in this case.

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center