Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: pinctrl: core: Handling pinmux and pinconf separately
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <d66e78e3-2000-611b-cd74-8a61461153e8@canonical.com>
 <5c08bd61-688f-e95b-5fa3-584f190ed4bf@xilinx.com>
 <bf508c29-4a51-5f97-8459-06c1fe74b60f@canonical.com>
 <f6cd3eb3-c8ce-9b40-e5dc-82b6748d4084@xilinx.com>
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <34c61597-a90b-5d90-f9fb-4ede3ece3b4c@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:03:30 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f6cd3eb3-c8ce-9b40-e5dc-82b6748d4084@xilinx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/03/2021 11:28, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/11/21 12:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 11/03/2021 11:16, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/11/21 11:57 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Static analysis on linux-next with Coverity has found a potential issue
>>>> in drivers/pinctrl/core.c with the following commit:
>>>>
>>>> commit 0952b7ec1614abf232e921aac0cc2bca8e60e162
>>>> Author: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
>>>> Date:   Wed Mar 10 09:16:54 2021 +0100
>>>>
>>>>     pinctrl: core: Handling pinmux and pinconf separately
>>>>
>>>> The analysis is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1234 /**
>>>> 1235  * pinctrl_commit_state() - select/activate/program a pinctrl state
>>>> to HW
>>>> 1236  * @p: the pinctrl handle for the device that requests configuration
>>>> 1237  * @state: the state handle to select/activate/program
>>>> 1238  */
>>>> 1239 static int pinctrl_commit_state(struct pinctrl *p, struct
>>>> pinctrl_state *state)
>>>> 1240 {
>>>> 1241        struct pinctrl_setting *setting, *setting2;
>>>> 1242        struct pinctrl_state *old_state = p->state;
>>>>
>>>>     1. var_decl: Declaring variable ret without initializer.
>>>>
>>>> 1243        int ret;
>>>> 1244
>>>>
>>>>     2. Condition p->state, taking true branch.
>>>>
>>>> 1245        if (p->state) {
>>>> 1246                /*
>>>> 1247                 * For each pinmux setting in the old state, forget
>>>> SW's record
>>>> 1248                 * of mux owner for that pingroup. Any pingroups
>>>> which are
>>>> 1249                 * still owned by the new state will be re-acquired
>>>> by the call
>>>> 1250                 * to pinmux_enable_setting() in the loop below.
>>>> 1251                 */
>>>>
>>>>     3. Condition 0 /* !!(!__builtin_types_compatible_p() &&
>>>> !__builtin_types_compatible_p()) */, taking false branch.
>>>>     4. Condition !(&setting->node == &p->state->settings), taking true
>>>> branch.
>>>>     7. Condition 0 /* !!(!__builtin_types_compatible_p() &&
>>>> !__builtin_types_compatible_p()) */, taking false branch.
>>>>     8. Condition !(&setting->node == &p->state->settings), taking true
>>>> branch.
>>>>     11. Condition 0 /* !!(!__builtin_types_compatible_p() &&
>>>> !__builtin_types_compatible_p()) */, taking false branch.
>>>>     12. Condition !(&setting->node == &p->state->settings), taking false
>>>> branch.
>>>>
>>>> 1252                list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings,
>>>> node) {
>>>>
>>>>     5. Condition setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP, taking true
>>>> branch.
>>>>     9. Condition setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP, taking true
>>>> branch.
>>>> 1253                        if (setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
>>>>     6. Continuing loop.
>>>>     10. Continuing loop.
>>>>
>>>> 1254                                continue;
>>>> 1255                        pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
>>>> 1256                }
>>>> 1257        }
>>>> 1258
>>>> 1259        p->state = NULL;
>>>> 1260
>>>> 1261        /* Apply all the settings for the new state - pinmux first */
>>>>
>>>>     13. Condition 0 /* !!(!__builtin_types_compatible_p() &&
>>>> !__builtin_types_compatible_p()) */, taking false branch.
>>>>     14. Condition !(&setting->node == &state->settings), taking true branch.
>>>> 1262        list_for_each_entry(setting, &state->settings, node) {
>>>>     15. Switch case value PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN.
>>>>
>>>> 1263                switch (setting->type) {
>>>> 1264                case PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP:
>>>> 1265                        ret = pinmux_enable_setting(setting);
>>>> 1266                        break;
>>>> 1267                case PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN:
>>>> 1268                case PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP:
>>>>
>>>>     16. Breaking from switch.
>>>>
>>>> 1269                        break;
>>>> 1270                default:
>>>> 1271                        ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> 1272                        break;
>>>> 1273                }
>>>> 1274
>>>>
>>>>     Uninitialized scalar variable (UNINIT)
>>>>     17. uninit_use: Using uninitialized value ret.
>>>>
>>>> 1275                if (ret < 0)
>>>> 1276                        goto unapply_new_state;
>>>>
>>>> For the PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN and PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP
>>>> setting->type cases the loop can break out with ret not being set. Since
>>>> ret has not been initialized it the ret < 0 check is checking against an
>>>> uninitialized value.
>>>>
>>>> I was not sure if the PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN and
>>>> PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP cases should be setting ret and if so, what
>>>> the value of ret should be set to (is it an error condition or not?). Or
>>>> should ret be initialized to 0 or a default error value at the start of
>>>> the function.
>>>>
>>>> Hence I'm reporting this issue.
>>>
>>> What about this? Is this passing static analysis?
>>
>> It will take me 2 hours to re-run the analysis, but from eyeballing the
>> code I think the assignments will fix this.
> 
> would be good if you can rerun it and get back to us on this.
> I will wait if something else will pop up and then will send v2 with
> this that Linus can apply this one instead.

Yep, passed, fixes the issue found by Coverity.

> 
> Thanks,
> Michal
> 
> 
>