On 8/6/19 10:31 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-08-06 02:55, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
@@ -1493,6 +1493,11 @@ static int _sdw_prepare_stream(struct
sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
}
}
+ if (!bus) {
+ pr_err("Configuration error in %s\n", __func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
This should probably be located in separate path - not at all an
initialization removal.
It's a consequence of the initialization removal: because we are
removing the default init, there is a risk that the loop just before do
not set it, so it's required to trap the case where the variable in not
initialized.
@@ -1573,6 +1578,11 @@ static int _sdw_enable_stream(struct
sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
}
}
+ if (!bus) {
+ pr_err("Configuration error in %s\n", __func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
Same here.
same reply
@@ -1639,13 +1650,14 @@ static int _sdw_disable_stream(struct
sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
ret = do_bank_switch(stream);
if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(bus->dev, "Bank switch failed: %d\n", ret);
+ pr_err("Bank switch failed: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
}
Here too.
no, same thing, the bus variable is initialized in loops so tools will
report a possible path where bus->dev is an invalid dereference.
I might have missed something though I bet you got my point.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
