On 24-08-13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 08:53, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024, at 08:12, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24-08-08, Ma Ke wrote:
> > >> Check bc->bus_power_dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() return value using
> > >> IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead of plain IS_ERR(), and fail if bc->bus_power_dev
> > >> is either error or NULL.
> > >>
> > >> In case a power domain attached by dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() is not
> > >> described in DT, dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() returns NULL, which is
> > >> then used, which leads to NULL pointer dereference.
> > >
> > > Argh.. there are other users of this API getting this wrong too. This
> > > make me wonder why dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() return NULL instead of
> > > the error code returned by of_property_match_string().
> > >
> > > IMHO to fix once and for all users we should fix the return code of
> > > dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name().
> >
> > Agreed, in general any use of IS_ERR_OR_NULL() indicates that there
> > is a bad API that should be fixed instead, and this is probably the
> > case for genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id().
> >
> > One common use that is widely accepted is returning NULL when
> > a subsystem is completely disabled. In this case an IS_ERR()
> > check returns false on a NULL pointer and the returned structure
> > should be opaque so callers are unable to dereference that
> > NULL pointer.
> >
> > genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_{id,name}() is documented to also return
> > a NULL pointer when no PM domain is needed, but they return
> > a normal 'struct device' that can easily be used in an unsafe
> > way after checking for IS_ERR().
> >
> > Fortunately it seems that there are only a few callers at the
> > moment, so coming up with a safer interface is still possible.
>
> I am not sure it's worth the effort, but I may be wrong.
>
> It's been a bit tricky to keep the interfaces above consistent with
> the legacy interface (dev_pm_domain_attach()). Moreover, we need a way
> to allow a PM domain to be optional. By returning NULL (or 0), we are
> telling the consumer that there is no PM domain described that we can
> attach the device to.
Other subsystems like GPIO, regulator have a ..._optional API for this,
could this be an option?
Regards,
Marco
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
