linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Staging: comedi: fix CHECK issue in ni

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: <56E01261.6070600@mev.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:09:05 +0000
From:	Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
To:	ravishankarkm <ravishankarkm32@...il.com>, greg@...ah.com
Cc:	hsweeten@...ionengravers.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Staging: comedi: fix CHECK issue in ni_tio.c

On 09/03/16 11:35, ravishankarkm wrote:
> This is a patch to the ni_tio.c file that fixes up a CHECK issues
> found by the checkpatch.pl tool.
>
> i.e.Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code
> rather than BUG() or BUG_ON().
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravishankar Karkala Mallikarjunayya <ravishankarkm32@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_tio.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>

I guess this should be PATCH 1/2, not PATCH 1/1?

> diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_tio.c b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_tio.c
> index b74e44e..1348a75 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_tio.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_tio.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void ni_tio_reset_count_and_disarm(struct ni_gpct *counter)
>   static uint64_t ni_tio_clock_period_ps(const struct ni_gpct *counter,
>   				       unsigned generic_clock_source)
>   {
> -	uint64_t clock_period_ps;
> +	u64 clock_period_ps;

This change from uint64_t to u64 comes from your PATCH 2/2, but it has 
got mixed into this patch too.  That makes it impossible to apply both 
of your patches.

>
>   	switch (generic_clock_source & NI_GPCT_CLOCK_SRC_SELECT_MASK) {
>   	case NI_GPCT_TIMEBASE_1_CLOCK_SRC_BITS:
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static uint64_t ni_tio_clock_period_ps(const struct ni_gpct *counter,
>   		clock_period_ps *= 8;
>   		break;
>   	default:
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);

These BUG() to WARN_ON(1) changes are good.

>   		break;
>   	}
>   	return clock_period_ps;
> @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static unsigned ni_m_series_clock_src_select(const struct ni_gpct *counter)
>   		}
>   		if (i <= NI_M_MAX_PFI_CHAN)
>   			break;
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	clock_source |= ni_tio_clock_src_modifiers(counter);
> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static unsigned ni_660x_clock_src_select(const struct ni_gpct *counter)
>   		}
>   		if (i <= NI_660X_MAX_SRC_PIN)
>   			break;
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	clock_source |= ni_tio_clock_src_modifiers(counter);
> @@ -385,9 +385,9 @@ static void ni_tio_set_sync_mode(struct ni_gpct *counter, int force_alt_sync)
>   	struct ni_gpct_device *counter_dev = counter->counter_dev;
>   	unsigned cidx = counter->counter_index;
>   	const unsigned counting_mode_reg = NITIO_CNT_MODE_REG(cidx);
> -	static const uint64_t min_normal_sync_period_ps = 25000;
> +	static const u64 min_normal_sync_period_ps = 25000;
>   	unsigned mode;
> -	uint64_t clock_period_ps;
> +	u64 clock_period_ps;
>
>   	if (ni_tio_counting_mode_registers_present(counter_dev) == 0)
>   		return;
> @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ static unsigned ni_660x_clk_src(unsigned int clock_source)
>   		if (i <= NI_660X_MAX_SRC_PIN)
>   			break;
>   		ni_660x_clock = 0;
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	return GI_SRC_SEL(ni_660x_clock);
> @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static unsigned ni_m_clk_src(unsigned int clock_source)
>   			break;
>   		pr_err("invalid clock source 0x%lx\n",
>   		       (unsigned long)clock_source);
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		ni_m_series_clock = 0;
>   		break;
>   	}
> @@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ static void ni_tio_get_clock_src(struct ni_gpct *counter,
>   				 unsigned int *clock_source,
>   				 unsigned int *period_ns)
>   {
> -	uint64_t temp64;
> +	u64 temp64;
>
>   	*clock_source = ni_tio_generic_clock_src_select(counter);
>   	temp64 = ni_tio_clock_period_ps(counter, *clock_source);
> @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ int ni_tio_set_gate_src(struct ni_gpct *counter, unsigned gate_index,
>   		case ni_gpct_variant_660x:
>   			return ni_660x_set_gate2(counter, gate_source);
>   		default:
> -			BUG();
> +			WARN_ON(1);
>   			break;
>   		}
>   		break;
> @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ static unsigned ni_660x_gate_to_generic_gate(unsigned gate)
>   			if (gate == NI_660X_PIN_GATE_SEL(i))
>   				return NI_GPCT_GATE_PIN_GATE_SELECT(i);
>   		}
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	return 0;
> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ static unsigned ni_m_gate_to_generic_gate(unsigned gate)
>   			if (gate == NI_M_PFI_GATE_SEL(i))
>   				return NI_GPCT_PFI_GATE_SELECT(i);
>   		}
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	return 0;
> @@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ static unsigned ni_660x_gate2_to_generic_gate(unsigned gate)
>   			if (gate == NI_660X_UD_PIN_GATE2_SEL(i))
>   				return NI_GPCT_UP_DOWN_PIN_GATE_SELECT(i);
>   		}
> -		BUG();
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>   		break;
>   	}
>   	return 0;
> @@ -1119,7 +1119,7 @@ static int ni_tio_get_gate_src(struct ni_gpct *counter, unsigned gate_index,
>   		}
>
>   		gate = GI_BITS_TO_GATE(ni_tio_get_soft_copy(counter,
> -						NITIO_INPUT_SEL_REG(cidx)));
> +				       NITIO_INPUT_SEL_REG(cidx)));

There is no need for the patch to adjust the whitespace on that line. 
Ideally, the 'NITIO_INPUT_SEL_REG(cidx)' should line up with 'counter' 
on the previous line, but that would take the line over 80 characters. 
The current amount of whitespace is a compromise, but there is no need 
to change it.

-- 
-=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd.    E-mail: <abbotti@....co.uk> )=-
-=(                          Web: http://www.mev.co.uk/  )=-