Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Coverity: mlx90632_probe(): Error handling issues

DISCUSSION coverity-bot 2 participants 2 messages Nov 4, 2022 – Nov 5, 2022

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

Hello!

This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project:
https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan

You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:

Thu Nov 3 21:42:26 2022 +0000
c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes")

Coverity reported the following:

*** CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) drivers/iio/temperature/mlx90632.c:1270 in mlx90632_probe()
1264 mlx90632->object_ambient_temperature = 25000; /* 25 degrees milliCelsius */
1265 mlx90632->interaction_ts = jiffies; /* Set initial value */
1266
1267 pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev);
1268 pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev);
1269
vvv CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN)
vvv Calling "devm_pm_runtime_enable" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 21 out of 24 times).

1270     	devm_pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev);
1271     	pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&client->dev, MLX90632_SLEEP_DELAY_MS);
1272     	pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&client->dev);
1273     	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&client->dev);

1274
1275 return devm_iio_device_register(&client->dev, indio_dev);

If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first):

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527134 ("Error handling issues")

Fixes c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes")

Thanks for your attention!

Signature · 1 line
Coverity-bot
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 36 lines · On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:35:22 -0700 coverity-bot <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello!

This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project:
https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan

You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:

Thu Nov 3 21:42:26 2022 +0000
c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes")

Coverity reported the following:

*** CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) drivers/iio/temperature/mlx90632.c:1270 in mlx90632_probe()
1264 mlx90632->object_ambient_temperature = 25000; /* 25 degrees milliCelsius */
1265 mlx90632->interaction_ts = jiffies; /* Set initial value */
1266
1267 pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev);
1268 pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev);
1269
vvv CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN)
vvv Calling "devm_pm_runtime_enable" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 21 out of 24 times).

1270     	devm_pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev);
1271     	pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&client->dev, MLX90632_SLEEP_DELAY_MS);
1272     	pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&client->dev);
1273     	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&client->dev);

1274
1275 return devm_iio_device_register(&client->dev, indio_dev);

If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first):

Quoted 6 lines

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527134 ("Error handling issues")

Fixes c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes")

Thanks for your attention!

I'll post a fix shortly. Looks like a simple
ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable()...
if (ret)

	return ret;

will be enough here.

Also turns out there is a missing static marking related to the pm support. I'll fix that too. Not sure why I didn't get a 0-day report for that.

Thanks,

Jonathan