Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:49:47 -0700 | From | Darren Hart <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eeepc-laptop: remove possible use of uninitialized value |
| |
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:53:25AM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote: > In store_sys_acpi, if count equals zero, or parse_arg()s sscanf call > fails, 'value' remains possibly uninitialized. In that case 'value' > shouldn't be used to produce the store_sys_acpi()s return value. > > Only test the return value of set_acpi() if we can actually call it. > Return rv otherwise. > > Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > index bd533c2..41f12ba 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > @@ -279,10 +279,10 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm, > int rv, value; > > rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value); > - if (rv > 0) > - value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
That was rather horrible wasn't it? :-)
> - if (value < 0) > - return -EIO; > + if (rv > 0) { > + if (set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value) < 0) > + return -EIO;
Is there a compelling reason not to propogate the return code of set_acpi? (ENODEV specifically). I see -EIO in Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt, but it's used by default if the show() pointer is NULL (for example), but otherwise propogates the error.
Specifically it states:
- show() or store() can always return errors. If a bad value comes through, be sure to return an error.
Greg, does this need to be -EIO? or is returning someting like ENODEV preferable if it more accurately reflects the error?
-- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |