On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 12:23:14PM -0600, Aditya Pakki wrote:
> In tpm_eval_dsm, BUG_ON on ppi_handle is used as an assertion.
> By returning NULL to the callers, instead of crashing, the error
> can be better handled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@xxxxxxx>
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ppi.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ppi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ppi.c
> index b2dab941cb7f..4b6f6a9c0b48 100644
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ppi.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ static inline union acpi_object *
> tpm_eval_dsm(acpi_handle ppi_handle, int func, acpi_object_type type,
> union acpi_object *argv4, u64 rev)
> {
> - BUG_ON(!ppi_handle);
> + if (!ppi_handle)
> + return NULL;
If it can't happen the confusing if should either be omitted entirely
or written as
if (WARN_ON(!ppi_handle))
return NULL;
Leaving it as apparently operational code just creates confusion for
the reader that now has the task to figure out why ppi_handle can be
null.
I favour not including tests for impossible conditions. The kernel
will crash immediately if ppi_handle is null anyhow.
Jason
