[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b18cddde778ada5030f6a80308854cf9c0dc4d23.camel@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 08:02:16 +0000
From: "Niedermayr, BENEDIKT" <benedikt.niedermayr@...mens.com>
To: "rogerq@...nel.org" <rogerq@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues
On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 10:56 +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2022 10:53, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > Hi Benedikt,
> >
> > On 04/11/2022 21:33, coverity-bot 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscan.coverity.com%2Fprojects%2Flinux-next-weekly-scan&data=05%7C01%7Cbenedikt.niedermayr%40siemens.com%7C1a25cc8704524f24224108dac09dfab7%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638034081994087461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=W1KlBKg9nwEDfFAbqW6Jw7v1d46HQLj8RX8wlZ9RHyc%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
> > > lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
> > >
> > > Wed Nov 2 10:02:39 2022 -0400
> > > 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions")
> > >
> > > Coverity reported the following:
> > >
> > > *** CID 1527139: Control flow issues (NO_EFFECT)
> > > drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c:1048 in gpmc_is_valid_waitpin()
> > > 1042 spin_unlock(&gpmc_mem_lock);
> > > 1043 }
> > > 1044 EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_free);
> > > 1045
> > > 1046 static bool gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(u32 waitpin)
> >
> > We will need to change this waitpin argument to int.
> > In addition we will also need to change
> > struct gpmc_waitpin->pin and struct gpmc_setting->wait_pin
> > to int as in the code we are relying on GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID logic which is -1.
>
> Another alternative with less churn is to leave them as u32
> but make GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID set to a large positive number.
Ok, I will fix that.
Do I need to send a new fix-patch on top the current patch series?
Or should I just send only the bugfix-patch for the coverity-bot?
>
> > > 1047 {
> > > vvv CID 1527139: Control flow issues (NO_EFFECT)
> > > vvv This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "waitpin >= 0U".
> > > 1048 return waitpin >= 0 && waitpin < gpmc_nr_waitpins;
> > > 1049 }
> > > 1050
> > > 1051 static int gpmc_alloc_waitpin(struct gpmc_device *gpmc,
> > > 1052 struct gpmc_settings *p)
> > > 1053 {
> > >
> > > 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):
> > >
> > > Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@...omium.org>
> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527139 ("Control flow issues")
> > > Fixes: 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions")
> > >
> > > Thanks for your attention!
> > >
>
> cheers,
> -roger
cheers,
benedikt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists