led: fix up the ENOSYS condition to pass coverity #90734
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fabiobaltieri
commented
May 28, 2025
simonguinot
previously approved these changes
May 28, 2025
The current ENOSYS check code can proceed for a driver that hypothetically implements the on() but not the off() function of vice versa, which would result in a null pointer dereference. This would be a weird use case but Coverity catches the situation, no harm in changing the ENOSYS check to fail if the on/off is half implemented, so let's change it to do that. Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
fabiobaltieri
force-pushed
the
led-coverity
branch
from
9592e1a to
a460132
Compare
|
faxe1008
approved these changes
May 28, 2025
simonguinot
approved these changes
May 28, 2025
thedjnK
approved these changes
May 28, 2025
jeppenodgaard
approved these changes
May 28, 2025
soburi
approved these changes
May 29, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current ENOSYS check code can proceed for a driver that hypothetically implements the on() but not the off() function of vice versa, which would result in a null pointer dereference.
This would be a weird use case but Coverity catches the situation, no harm in changing the ENOSYS check to fail if the on/off is half implemented, so let's change it to do that.
Fixes #90484