[PATCH v3 1/3] of: Move simple-framebuffer device handling from simplefb to of

[Hector Martin]

On 13/12/2021 20.30, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:46 AM Hector Martin <marcan at marcan.st> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2021 17.44, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> Hello Hector,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 7:24 AM Hector Martin <marcan at marcan.st> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This code is required for both simplefb and simpledrm, so let's move it
>>>> into the OF core instead of having it as an ad-hoc initcall in the
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan at marcan.st>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/of/platform.c          |  4 ++++
>>>>    drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c | 21 +--------------------
>>>>    2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is indeed a much better approach than what I suggested. I just
>>> have one comment.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>> index b3faf89744aa..793350028906 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>> @@ -540,6 +540,10 @@ static int __init of_platform_default_populate_init(void)
>>>>                   of_node_put(node);
>>>>           }
>>>>
>>>> +       node = of_get_compatible_child(of_chosen, "simple-framebuffer");
>>>
>>> You have to check if the node variable is NULL here.
>>>
>>>> +       of_platform_device_create(node, NULL, NULL);
>>>
>>> Otherwise this could lead to a NULL pointer dereference if debug
>>> output is enabled (the node->full_name is printed).
>>
>> Where is it printed? I thought I might need a NULL check, but this code
> 
> Sorry, I misread of_amba_device_create() as
> of_platform_device_create(), which uses the "%pOF" printk format
> specifier [0] to print the node's full name as a debug output [1].
> 
> [0]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16-rc5/source/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst#L462
> [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16-rc5/source/drivers/of/platform.c#L233
> 
>> was suggested verbatim by Rob in v2 without the NULL check and digging
>> through I found that the NULL codepath is safe.
>>
> 
> You are right that passing NULL is a safe code path for now due the
> of_device_is_available(node) check, but that seems fragile to me since
> just adding a similar debug output to of_platform_device_create()
> could trigger the NULL pointer dereference.

Since Rob is the DT maintainer, I'm going to defer to his opinion on 
this one :-)

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan at marcan.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub