On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:41:55PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 11/12/2015 08:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >Check that IRQ number passed to dev_pm_set_wake_irq and > >dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq is valid (not negative) before accepting it. > > > >Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> > >--- > > > >My recent change to i2c core introduced a code path that led to calling > >dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&client->dev, -ENOENT), which succeeded but > >obviously did the wrong thing. Checking the IRQ and bailing out early > >would have helped noticing this issue earlier. > > > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >index eb6e674..0d77cd6 100644 > >--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > >@@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) > > struct wake_irq *wirq; > > int err; > > > >+ if (irq < 0) > > <= 0 ?
Maybe. I am still confused whether we treat 0 as invalid or not. > > >+ return -EINVAL; > >+ > > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!wirq) > > return -ENOMEM; > >@@ -167,6 +170,9 @@ int dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(struct device *dev, > >int irq) > > struct wake_irq *wirq; > > int err; > > > >+ if (irq < 0) > >+ return -EINVAL; > >+ > > wirq = kzalloc(sizeof(*wirq), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!wirq) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > -- > regards, > -grygorii -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
