On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Suraj Jitindar Singh <sjitindarsingh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The validity of the property input argument to of_remove_property() is > never checked within the function and thus it is possible to pass a null > value. It happens that this will be picked up in __of_remove_property() > as no matching property of the device node will be found and thus an > error will be returned, however once again there is no explicit check > for a null value. By the time this is detected 2 locks have already been > acquired which is completely unnecessary if the property to remove is > null. > > Add an explicit check in the function of_remove_property() for a null > property value and return -ENODEV in this case, this is consistent with > what the previous return value would have been when the null value was > not detected and passed to __of_remove_property(). > > By moving an explicit check for the property paramenter into the > of_remove_property() function, this will remove the need to perform this > check in calling code before invocation of the of_remove_property() > function. > > Signed-off-by: Suraj Jitindar Singh <sjitindarsingh@xxxxxxxxx> For both patches: Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
