On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for
> failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using
> GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and
> propagating this error return down the the caller chain.
>
> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value")
>
> Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and
> restore pinctrl context")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs)
>
> mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>
> - if (!pcs->saved_vals)
> + if (!pcs->saved_vals) {
> pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size,
> GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!pcs->saved_vals)
> + return -ENOMEM;
Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition?
Something like
if (!foo)
foo = ...malloc(...);
if (!foo)
return ...
> + }
>
> switch (pcs->width) {
> case 64:
> @@ -1649,8 +1652,13 @@ static int pinctrl_single_suspend(struct
> platform_device *pdev,
> if (!pcs)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF)
> - pcs_save_context(pcs);
> + if (pcs->flags & PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF) {
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = pcs_save_context(pcs);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> return pinctrl_force_sleep(pcs->pctl);
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
