Hi, Brian,
On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 21:30 -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 07:41:59PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:52:55PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > >
> > > If using CONFIG_THERMAL_EMULATION, there's a corner case where we
> > > might
> > > get an error from the zone's get_temp() callback, but we'll
> > > ignore that
> > > and keep using its value. Let's just error out properly instead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > ?drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 3 +++
> > > ?1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > > b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > > index 911fd964c742..0fa497f10d25 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > > @@ -494,6 +494,8 @@ int thermal_zone_get_temp(struct
> > > thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp)
> > > ? mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
> > > ?
> > > ? ret = tz->ops->get_temp(tz, temp);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto exit_unlock;
> > Yeah, but the follow through is intentional, if I am not mistaken.
> OK...but it has a bug. It potentially utilizes an uninitialized value
> for *temp.
>
Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > > ?
> > > ? if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THERMAL_EMULATION) && tz-
> > > >emul_temperature) {
> > Even if the driver is not able to read real temperature, but emul
> > temp
> > is configured, then there is still opportunity to report the
> > emulated
> > temperature.
> OK, maybe, but you should avoid doing this comparison then:
>
> 513?????????????????if (!ret && *temp < crit_temp)
> 514?????????????????????????*temp = tz->emul_temperature;
>
> Note that 'ret' might be 0 (from the calls to ->get_trip_type()), and
> then
> you're comparing with the uninitialized value of *temp. So you need
> some
> solution that accounts for this and decides to ignore the real
> temperature properly.
>
right.
> >
> > >
> > > ? for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++) {
> > > @@ -514,6 +516,7 @@ int thermal_zone_get_temp(struct
> > > thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp)
> > > ? *temp = tz->emul_temperature;
> > And if you check the lines at the bottom of the loop, you will see
> > that,
> > in the fail case, we will stil compare to what is the content of
> > temp,
> > which might be problematic.
> Yes...are you saying the same thing I am above?
>
> >
> > I would prefer we consider the patch I sent
> > some time ago:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7876381/
> Honestly I didn't look that deeply into the framework here (and I
> also
> don't use CONFIG_THERMAL_EMULATION), I was just fixing something that
> was obviously wrong.
>
> But on first read, that patch looks good to me -- although it'd be
> good
> to note the uninitialized value fix in the comit log. Any reason that
> didn't end up getting merged? It looks like it got reviewed, and
> you're
> a thermal subsystem maintainer...
>
hmmm, I forgot why I missed this one in the end.
Eduardo,
would you mind refresh and resend the patch?
thanks,
rui
> Brian
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at??http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
