linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] PCI: acpiphp: look _RMV method a bit deeper in the hierarhcy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc8BauuBJcfqBzu_+6nUwEC-uD3z_RF5gT-3YhV0fjTqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:31:52 +0300
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, john.ronciak@...el.com,
	miles.j.penner@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] PCI: acpiphp: look _RMV method a bit deeper in the hierarhcy

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:15:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mika Westerberg
>> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

[]

>> > +static acpi_status pcihp_evaluate_rmv(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
>> > +                                     void *context, void **return_not_used)
>> > +{
>> > +       unsigned long long *removable = context;
>> > +       unsigned long long value;
>> > +       acpi_status status;
>> > +
>> > +       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_RMV", NULL, &value);
>> > +       if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && value) {
>>
>> So, there is a chance the caller gets back uninitialized *context.
>> Let's assume that is by design.
>>
>> > +               *removable = value;
>> > +               return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
>> > +       }
>> > +       return AE_OK;
>> > +}
>>
>>
>> > +static bool pcihp_is_removable(acpi_handle handle, size_t depth)
>> > +{
>> > +       unsigned long long removable = 0;
>> > +       acpi_status status;
>> > +
>> > +       status = pcihp_evaluate_rmv(handle, 0, &removable, NULL);
>> > +       if ((status == AE_CTRL_TERMINATE) && removable)
>>
>> Here you already have removable not equal zero.
>
> Hmm, removable is initialized to zero just few lines above... Did I miss
> something obvious?

Yes, that's correct, however, you already did this check when you call
evaluate_rmv. Thus, second check '&& removable' is not needed.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/