On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 16:19:17 +0100 Tomasz Duszynski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 10:51:40PM -0600, Kangjie Lu wrote: > > of_match_device may return NULL when it fails, and in this case, > > there will be a NULL pointer dereference. The fix returns > > EINVAL when of_match_device returns NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c > > index 917223d5ff5b..531b6614ea29 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c > > @@ -524,13 +524,16 @@ static int max9611_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > { > > const char * const shunt_res_prop = "shunt-resistor-micro-ohms"; > > const struct device_node *of_node = client->dev.of_node; > > - const struct of_device_id *of_id = > > - of_match_device(max9611_of_table, &client->dev); > > Given we got to this point how this can go wrong? If this is to squash a warning then there may be some argument even though it can't actually fail. If there is such a warning please put it in the patch description. Thanks, Jonathan > > > + const struct of_device_id *of_id; > > struct max9611_dev *max9611; > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev; > > unsigned int of_shunt; > > int ret; > > > > + of_id = of_match_device(max9611_of_table, &client->dev); > > + if (!of_id) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*max9611)); > > if (!indio_dev) > > return -ENOMEM; > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
