2024-04-10 14:23:29

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: [PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-card: soc-card-test: Fix some error handling in probe()

Fix this reversed if statement and call put_device() before returning
the error code.

Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
v2: call put_device()

sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
index 075c52fe82e5..faf9a3d46884 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
@@ -148,8 +148,10 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;

ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
- if (!ret)
+ if (ret) {
+ put_device(priv->card_dev);
return ret;
+ }

return 0;
}
--
2.43.0

2024-04-10 14:52:40

by Richard Fitzgerald

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-card: soc-card-test: Fix some error handling in probe()

On 10/4/24 15:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Fix this reversed if statement and call put_device() before returning
> the error code.
>
> Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2: call put_device()
>
> sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> index 075c52fe82e5..faf9a3d46884 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> @@ -148,8 +148,10 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
> priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;
>
> ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> - if (!ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + put_device(priv->card_dev);
> return ret;
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }

Thanks.
Reviewed-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>

I can see that put_device() is also missing earlier in the
function:

if (!priv->card)
return -ENOMEM;

I can send a fix for that.

2024-04-10 15:32:15

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-card: soc-card-test: Fix some error handling in probe()

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:43:45PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> On 10/4/24 15:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Fix this reversed if statement and call put_device() before returning
> > the error code.
> >
> > Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v2: call put_device()
> >
> > sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> > index 075c52fe82e5..faf9a3d46884 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
> > @@ -148,8 +148,10 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
> > priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> > - if (!ret)
> > + if (ret) {
> > + put_device(priv->card_dev);
> > return ret;
> > + }
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Thanks.
> Reviewed-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
>
> I can see that put_device() is also missing earlier in the
> function:
>
> if (!priv->card)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> I can send a fix for that.

No. Let me resend. I'm sorry, this patch has not been up to proper
standards. Also I should fix Smatch to warn about missing put_device()
calls to prevent this sort of thing going forward.

regards,
dan carpenter

2024-04-10 15:38:59

by Richard Fitzgerald

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-card: soc-card-test: Fix some error handling in probe()

On 10/4/24 16:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:43:45PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>> On 10/4/24 15:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> Fix this reversed if statement and call put_device() before returning
>>> the error code.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> v2: call put_device()
>>>
>>> sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
>>> index 075c52fe82e5..faf9a3d46884 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
>>> @@ -148,8 +148,10 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
>>> priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;
>>> ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
>>> - if (!ret)
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + put_device(priv->card_dev);
>>> return ret;
>>> + }
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Reviewed-by: Richard Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
>>
>> I can see that put_device() is also missing earlier in the
>> function:
>>
>> if (!priv->card)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> I can send a fix for that.
>
> No. Let me resend. I'm sorry, this patch has not been up to proper
> standards.

The same could be said for my original code here.

I suggest moving this block of code _before_ the kunit_device_register()
so there's no need to put_device() if the alloc fails:

priv->card = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv->card), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!priv->card)
return -ENOMEM;

Also I should fix Smatch to warn about missing put_device()
> calls to prevent this sort of thing going forward.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter