On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for > failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using > GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and > propagating this error return down the the caller chain. > > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value") > > Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and restore pinctrl context") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs) > > mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE; > > - if (!pcs->saved_vals) > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) { > pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size, GFP_ATOMIC); > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) > + return -ENOMEM; Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition? Something like if (!foo) foo = ...malloc(...); if (!foo) return ... > + } > > switch (pcs->width) { > case 64: > @@ -1649,8 +1652,13 @@ static int pinctrl_single_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, > if (!pcs) > return -EINVAL; > > - if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF) > - pcs_save_context(pcs); > + if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF) { > + int ret; > + > + ret = pcs_save_context(pcs); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + } > > return pinctrl_force_sleep(pcs->pctl); > } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html