[PATCH v2] wifi: wilc1000: Handle wilc_sdio_cmd52() failure in wilc_sdio_read_init()

[PATCH v2] wifi: wilc1000: Handle wilc_sdio_cmd52() failure in wilc_sdio_read_init()

[Wentao Liang]

The wilc_sdio_read_init() calls wilc_sdio_cmd52() but does not check the
return value. This could lead to execution with potentially invalid data
if wilc_sdio_cmd52() fails. A proper implementation can be found in
wilc_sdio_read_reg().

Add error handling for wilc_sdio_cmd52(). If wilc_sdio_cmd52() fails,
log an error message via dev_err().

Fixes: eda308be643f ("staging: wilc1000: refactor interrupt handling for sdio")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.7
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
v2: Fix code error.

 drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/sdio.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/sdio.c
index 8ff49b08bbd2..e85aa5c605ef 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/sdio.c
@@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ static int wilc_sdio_read_int(struct wilc *wilc, u32 *int_status)
 	u32 tmp;
 	u8 irq_flags;
 	struct sdio_cmd52 cmd;
+	int ret;
 
 	wilc_sdio_read_size(wilc, &tmp);
 
@@ -826,7 +827,12 @@ static int wilc_sdio_read_int(struct wilc *wilc, u32 *int_status)
 	cmd.raw = 0;
 	cmd.read_write = 0;
 	cmd.data = 0;
-	wilc_sdio_cmd52(wilc, &cmd);
+	ret = wilc_sdio_cmd52(wilc, &cmd);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&func->dev, "Fail cmd 52, get IRQ register...\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
 	irq_flags = cmd.data;
 
 	if (sdio_priv->irq_gpio)
-- 
2.42.0.windows.2

Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: wilc1000: Handle wilc_sdio_cmd52() failure in wilc_sdio_read_init()

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2025-05-19 at 09:54 +0800, Wentao Liang wrote:
> The wilc_sdio_read_init() calls wilc_sdio_cmd52() but does not check the
> return value. This could lead to execution with potentially invalid data
> if wilc_sdio_cmd52() fails. A proper implementation can be found in
> wilc_sdio_read_reg().

This seems fairly much pointless, if the caller is never going to check
the return value anyway?

> 2.42.0.windows.2

Really? Did you even _build_ the changes yourself?

johannes