Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoC: cs35l45: Checks index of cs35l45_irqs[]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> On Sep 1, 2023, at 3:48 AM, Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Vlad Karpovich wrote:
>> From: Ricardo Rivera-Matos <rriveram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Checks the index computed by the virq offset before printing the
>> error condition in cs35l45_spk_safe_err() handler.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Rivera-Matos <rriveram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Karpovich <vkarpovi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> sound/soc/codecs/cs35l45.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l45.c b/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l45.c
>> index 2ac4612402eb..02b1172d2647 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l45.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/cs35l45.c
>> @@ -1023,7 +1023,10 @@ static irqreturn_t cs35l45_spk_safe_err(int irq, void *data)
>> 
>> i = irq - regmap_irq_get_virq(cs35l45->irq_data, 0);
>> 
>> - dev_err(cs35l45->dev, "%s condition detected!\n", cs35l45_irqs[i].name);
>> + if (i < 0 || i >= ARRAY_SIZE(cs35l45_irqs))
> 
> I am happy enough for this to be merged, since it clearly does
> no harm. So:
> 
> Acked-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> But I do still have a slight reservation of what is the point
> of this error check?  This handler is static and can only be
> called from within cs35l45.c and the only code that registers
> IRQs goes through the cs35l45_irqs array and registers IRQs
> from there, so how does this ever end up with i being out of
> bounds?
> 
> And whilst I would not add this to this patch. I do also think
> perhaps Ricardo had a point in his email, the IRQ handler
> should probably be renamed, since it handles more than just
> the spk_safe_err's, perhaps something like cs35l45_report_err.
> On why the watchdog and global error call this as well, that
> was a review comment on an earlier patch since the handlers for
> those errors only printed a message, they might as well be
> combined with the spk_safe error that also only printed a
> message. If at some point separate handling is added for them
> they can be split out.

Thanks Charles, I had missed that comment. It’s clear to me now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Charles

Acked-by: Ricardo Rivera-Matos <rriveram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rriveram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux