[PATCH] soc: aspeed: Add NULL pointer check in aspeed_lpc_enable_snoop()

[Chenyuan Yang]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your prompt reply!

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:21 PM Andrew Jeffery
<andrew at codeconstruct.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Chenyuan,
>
> On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 15:25 -0600, Chenyuan Yang wrote:
> > lpc_snoop->chan[channel].miscdev.name could be NULL, thus,
> > a pointer check is added to prevent potential NULL pointer
> > dereference.
> > This is similar to the fix in commit 3027e7b15b02
> > ("ice: FiI am cx some null pointer dereference issues in ice_ptp.c").
> >
> > This issue is found by our static analysis tool.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chenyuan Yang <chenyuan0y at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > index 9ab5ba9cf1d6..376b3a910797 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ static int aspeed_lpc_enable_snoop(struct
> > aspeed_lpc_snoop *lpc_snoop,
> >         lpc_snoop->chan[channel].miscdev.minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR;
> >         lpc_snoop->chan[channel].miscdev.name =
> >                 devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s%d", DEVICE_NAME,
> > channel);
> > +       if (!lpc_snoop->chan[channel].miscdev.name)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
>
> This introduces yet another place where the driver leaks resources in
> an error path (in this case, the channel kfifo). The misc device also
> gets leaked later on. It would be nice to address those first so that
> handling this error can take the appropriate cleanup path.
>
> Andrew

It seems that the `aspeed_lpc_enable_snoop()` function originally does
not have a cleanup path. For example, if `misc_register` fails, the
function directly returns rc without performing any cleanup.
Similarly, when the `channel` has its default value, the function
simply returns -EINVAL.

Given this, I am wondering whether it would be a good idea to
introduce a cleanup path. If so, should we ensure cleanup for all
possible exit points?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

-Chenyuan