[PATCH v12 06/12] spmi: Add helper to get a parent SPMI device

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race on `dev->parent` can lead to a NULL pointer dereference.
--

--- Patch [6]: [PATCH v12 06/12] spmi: Add helper to get a parent SPMI device ---
commit fb3218d6b528eabdc83ac90ed869685f4b9bd99e
Author: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com>

spmi: Add helper to get a parent SPMI device

This commit adds a new helper function spmi_get_parent_spmi_device()
which takes a struct device and returns a pointer to its parent SPMI
device if one exists, without modifying the reference count.

> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi.c
> index e218c81405458..a0a6ea9b1d2db 100644
> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -433,6 +433,29 @@ struct spmi_device *spmi_find_device_by_of_node(struct device_node *np)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spmi_find_device_by_of_node);
>  
> +/**
> + * spmi_get_parent_spmi_device() - get the parent SPMI device from current dev
> + * @dev:        pointer to a subdevice on SPMI bus
> + *
> + * Checks if the passed device is a child of an SPMI device and returns a
> + * handle to the parent SPMI device without incrementing any refcount.
> + *
> + * Return: Handle to the parent SPMI device or NULL
> + */
> +struct spmi_device *spmi_get_parent_spmi_device(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct device *parent;
> +
> +	if (dev && dev->parent) {
> +		parent = dev->parent;
> +
> +		if (parent->type == &spmi_dev_type)

[Severity: High]
Can a concurrent device topology change (like device_move()) cause a NULL
pointer dereference here?

If dev->parent is modified to NULL between the check in the if condition
and the assignment to the local parent variable, parent will become NULL
and this parent->type check will panic.

Since the compiler is permitted to emit two separate memory loads for
dev->parent in this sequence, would it be safer to read it exactly once
into the local variable before checking its validity?

> +			return to_spmi_device(parent);
> +	}
> +	return NULL;
> +}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260707111829.180158-1-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com?part=6