[PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[Xu Wang]

PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR.
In skl_clk_dev_probe(),it is inconsistent.

Signed-off-by: Xu Wang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
index 1c0e5226cb5b..f7aae10b629b 100644
--- a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
+++ b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
@@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int skl_clk_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 				&clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
 
 		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
-			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
+			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt]);
 			goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
 		}
 	}
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 18:11 +0800, Xu Wang wrote:
> PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR.
> In skl_clk_dev_probe(),it is inconsistent.
[]
> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
[]
> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int skl_clk_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  				&clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>  
>  		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
> -			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
> +			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt]);

NAK.

This is not inconsistent and you are removing the ++
which is a post increment.  Likely that is necessary.

You could write the access and the increment as two
separate statements if it confuses you.

Re: [PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 2/21/20 8:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 18:11 +0800, Xu Wang wrote:
>> PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR.
>> In skl_clk_dev_probe(),it is inconsistent.
> []
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
> []
>> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int skl_clk_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   				&clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>>   
>>   		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>> -			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>> +			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt]);
> 
> NAK.
> 
> This is not inconsistent and you are removing the ++
> which is a post increment.  Likely that is necessary.
> 
> You could write the access and the increment as two
> separate statements if it confuses you.

Well to be fair the code is far from clear.

the post-increment is likely needed because of the error handling in 
unregister_src_clk 1
		data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
				&clks[i], clk_pdata, i);

		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
			goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
		}
	}

	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, data);

	return 0;

err_unreg_skl_clk:
	unregister_src_clk(data);

static void unregister_src_clk(struct skl_clk_data *dclk)
{
	while (dclk->avail_clk_cnt--)
		clkdev_drop(dclk->clk[dclk->avail_clk_cnt]->lookup);
}

So the post-increment is cancelled in the while().

That said, the avail_clk_cnt field is never initialized or incremented 
in normal usages so the code looks quite suspicious indeed.

gitk tells me this patch is likely the culprit:

6ee927f2f01466 ('ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Fix NULL ptr dereference when 
unloading clk dev')

-		data->clk[i] = register_skl_clk(dev, &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
-		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[i])) {
-			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[i]);
+		data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
+				&clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
+
+		if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
  			goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
  		}
-
-		data->avail_clk_cnt++;

That last removal is probably wrong. Cezary and Amadeusz, you may want 
to look at this?

Re: [PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[Cezary Rojewski]

On 2020-02-21 16:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 2/21/20 8:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 18:11 +0800, Xu Wang wrote:
>>> PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR.
>>> In skl_clk_dev_probe(),it is inconsistent.

Please include all maintainers of given driver when submitting the 
patch, thank you.

>> []
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c 
>>> b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
>> []
>>> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int skl_clk_dev_probe(struct 
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>                   &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>>>           if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>>> -            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>>> +            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt]);
>>
>> NAK.
>>
>> This is not inconsistent and you are removing the ++
>> which is a post increment.  Likely that is necessary.
>>
>> You could write the access and the increment as two
>> separate statements if it confuses you.
> 
> Well to be fair the code is far from clear.

Thanks for notifying, Pierre.

Although NAK is upheld here. Proposed change is likely to introduce 
regression.

> 
> the post-increment is likely needed because of the error handling in 
> unregister_src_clk 1
>          data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
>                  &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
> 
>          if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>              ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>              goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
>          }
>      }
> 
>      platform_set_drvdata(pdev, data);
> 
>      return 0;
> 
> err_unreg_skl_clk:
>      unregister_src_clk(data);
> 
> static void unregister_src_clk(struct skl_clk_data *dclk)
> {
>      while (dclk->avail_clk_cnt--)
>          clkdev_drop(dclk->clk[dclk->avail_clk_cnt]->lookup);
> }
> 
> So the post-increment is cancelled in the while().
> 
> That said, the avail_clk_cnt field is never initialized or incremented 
> in normal usages so the code looks quite suspicious indeed.

As basically entire old Skylake code, so no surprises here : )
struct skl_clk_data::avail_clk_cnt field is initialized with 0 via 
devm_kzalloc in skl_clk_dev_probe().

> 
> gitk tells me this patch is likely the culprit:
> 
> 6ee927f2f01466 ('ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Fix NULL ptr dereference when 
> unloading clk dev')
> 
> -        data->clk[i] = register_skl_clk(dev, &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
> -        if (IS_ERR(data->clk[i])) {
> -            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[i]);
> +        data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
> +                &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
> +
> +        if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
> +            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>               goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
>           }
> -
> -        data->avail_clk_cnt++;
> 
> That last removal is probably wrong. Cezary and Amadeusz, you may want 
> to look at this?

Indeed, code looks wrong. Idk what are we even dropping in 
unregister_src_clk() if register_skl_clk() fails and avail_clk_cnt gets 
incremented anyway.

In general usage of while(ptr->counter--) (example of which is present 
in unregister_src_clk()) is prone to errors. Decrementation happens 
regardless of while's check outcome and caller may receive back handle 
in invalid state.

Amadeo, your thoughts?

Czarek

Re: [PATCH] Intel: Skylake: Fix inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR

[Amadeusz Sławiński]

On 2/23/2020 4:59 PM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> On 2020-02-21 16:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> On 2/21/20 8:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 18:11 +0800, Xu Wang wrote:
>>>> PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR.
>>>> In skl_clk_dev_probe(),it is inconsistent.
> 
> Please include all maintainers of given driver when submitting the 
> patch, thank you.
> 
>>> []
>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c 
>>>> b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-ssp-clk.c
>>> []
>>>> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int skl_clk_dev_probe(struct 
>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>                   &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>>>>           if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>>>> -            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>>>> +            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt]);
>>>
>>> NAK.
>>>
>>> This is not inconsistent and you are removing the ++
>>> which is a post increment.  Likely that is necessary.
>>>
>>> You could write the access and the increment as two
>>> separate statements if it confuses you.
>>
>> Well to be fair the code is far from clear.
> 
> Thanks for notifying, Pierre.
> 
> Although NAK is upheld here. Proposed change is likely to introduce 
> regression.
> 
>>
>> the post-increment is likely needed because of the error handling in 
>> unregister_src_clk 1
>>          data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
>>                  &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>>
>>          if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>>              ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>>              goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
>>          }
>>      }
>>
>>      platform_set_drvdata(pdev, data);
>>
>>      return 0;
>>
>> err_unreg_skl_clk:
>>      unregister_src_clk(data);
>>
>> static void unregister_src_clk(struct skl_clk_data *dclk)
>> {
>>      while (dclk->avail_clk_cnt--)
>>          clkdev_drop(dclk->clk[dclk->avail_clk_cnt]->lookup);
>> }
>>
>> So the post-increment is cancelled in the while().
>>
>> That said, the avail_clk_cnt field is never initialized or incremented 
>> in normal usages so the code looks quite suspicious indeed.
> 
> As basically entire old Skylake code, so no surprises here : )
> struct skl_clk_data::avail_clk_cnt field is initialized with 0 via 
> devm_kzalloc in skl_clk_dev_probe().
> 
>>
>> gitk tells me this patch is likely the culprit:
>>
>> 6ee927f2f01466 ('ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Fix NULL ptr dereference when 
>> unloading clk dev')
>>
>> -        data->clk[i] = register_skl_clk(dev, &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>> -        if (IS_ERR(data->clk[i])) {
>> -            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[i]);
>> +        data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt] = register_skl_clk(dev,
>> +                &clks[i], clk_pdata, i);
>> +
>> +        if (IS_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt])) {
>> +            ret = PTR_ERR(data->clk[data->avail_clk_cnt++]);
>>               goto err_unreg_skl_clk;
>>           }
>> -
>> -        data->avail_clk_cnt++;
>>
>> That last removal is probably wrong. Cezary and Amadeusz, you may want 
>> to look at this?
> 
> Indeed, code looks wrong. Idk what are we even dropping in 
> unregister_src_clk() if register_skl_clk() fails and avail_clk_cnt gets 
> incremented anyway.
> 
> In general usage of while(ptr->counter--) (example of which is present 
> in unregister_src_clk()) is prone to errors. Decrementation happens 
> regardless of while's check outcome and caller may receive back handle 
> in invalid state.
> 
> Amadeo, your thoughts?
>

Right, there is a problem with how we do increment available clock 
counter. It should be done in success path, sent fix.

Amadeusz