* Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> [180517 12:47]:
> Hello Tony Lindgren,
>
> The patch 09dfe5810762: "bus: ti-sysc: Add handling for clkctrl opt
> clocks" from Apr 16, 2018, leads to the following static checker
> warning:
>
> drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c:131 sysc_get_one_clock()
> error: buffer overflow 'clock_names' 2 <= 9
>
> drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
> 120 static int sysc_get_one_clock(struct sysc *ddata, const char *name)
> 121 {
> 122 int error, i, index = -ENODEV;
> 123
> 124 if (!strncmp(clock_names[SYSC_FCK], name, 3))
> 125 index = SYSC_FCK;
> 126 else if (!strncmp(clock_names[SYSC_ICK], name, 3))
> 127 index = SYSC_ICK;
> 128
> 129 if (index < 0) {
> 130 for (i = SYSC_OPTFCK0; i < SYSC_MAX_CLOCKS; i++) {
> 131 if (!clock_names[i]) {
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This isn't right. The clock_names[] array only has the two elements...
> Probably it should be testing ddate->clocks[i]?
Yup so it seems. Will take a look today.
> 143 ddata->clocks[index] = devm_clk_get(ddata->dev, name);
> 144 if (IS_ERR(ddata->clocks[index])) {
> 145 if (PTR_ERR(ddata->clocks[index]) == -ENOENT)
> 146 return 0;
> 147
> 148 dev_err(ddata->dev, "clock get error for %s: %li\n",
> 149 name, PTR_ERR(ddata->clocks[index]));
> 150
>
> Should we set ddata->clocks[index] = NULL on this path?
Maybe yeah. At least if clk_prepare later on fails we want to set it to
either to NULL or error to prevent clk_enable() being called on a failed
clock.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
