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  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]
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:55:36 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 096/130] ARM: ux500: fix prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi() calculation

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

commit f0e8faa7a5e894b0fc99d24be1b18685a92ea466 upstream.

This function clearly never worked and always returns true,
as pointed out by gcc-7:

arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c: In function 'prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi':
arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c:137:212: error: ?:
using integer constants in boolean context, the expression
will always evaluate to 'true' [-Werror=int-in-bool-context]

With the added braces, the condition actually makes sense.

Fixes: 34fe6f107eab ("mfd : Check if the other db8500 core is in WFI")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c
@@ -134,8 +134,8 @@ bool prcmu_pending_irq(void)
  */
 bool prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi(int cpu)
 {
-	return readl(PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY) & cpu ? PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI1 :
-		     PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI0;
+	return readl(PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY) &
+		(cpu ? PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI1 : PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI0);
 }
 
 /*


Powered by blists - more mailing lists