Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mux: mux-core: Add NULL check for dev->of_node
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyaosid@gmail.com>,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <c6f9c640d7617a7aefe865b747494e98a510f37a.1499463875.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <f816564f-5731-bfab-ef15-144ac7afc60f@axentia.se>
 <4a9a39dd-86b0-9485-46f1-76f4f8f5a809@gmail.com>
From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Organization: Axentia Technologies AB
Message-ID: <591290e2-5c63-52c2-b5a3-5417bc16dc27@axentia.se>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:07:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4a9a39dd-86b0-9485-46f1-76f4f8f5a809@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2017 07:07:59.2270 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0202MB2552
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2015
Lines: 62

On 2017-07-09 01:12, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> 
> On 7/8/2017 2:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-07-07 23:46, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> If dev->of_node is NULL, then calling mux_control_get()
>>> function can lead to NULL pointer exception. So adding
>>> a NULL check for dev->of_node.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>> Do you have a driver that might call mux_control_get and not have any
>> of_node?
> For non-device tree drivers, this case is valid. I hit this issue when I 
> was working on Intel USB MUX driver.
>>   If not, I don't see the point of this check.
> Since this is an API for other consumers, I think its better to have 
> some sanity checks.
> 
> If a non device tree driver call this API , I think its better to fail 
> with some error no instead of creating null pointer exception.

Is it? When authoring a new driver, and you make some error like this, why
is a "nice" error better than a big fat fail? If you get a null deref,
you will presumably also get a call stack etc, which will help you find
where you made the error, w/o adding a bunch of traces to find out exactly
what you did wrong.

So, I'm skeptic...

Cheers,
peda

>>
>> Cheers,
>> peda
>>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mux/mux-core.c | 3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>>   * Removed dummy new line.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> index 90b8995..924c983 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> @@ -438,6 +438,9 @@ struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
>>>   	int index = 0;
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   
>>> +	if (!np)
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>> +
>>>   	if (mux_name) {
>>>   		index = of_property_match_string(np, "mux-control-names",
>>>   						 mux_name);
>>>
>