linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by cpufreq_table_find_index

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: <20180212104030.GV28462@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:10:30 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mpe@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by
 cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()

On 12-02-18, 16:03, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> I agree too. There is no way we can get -1 with initialized cpu frequency table.
> We don't initialize powernv-cpufreq if we don't have valid CPU frequency
> entries. Is there any other way to suppress the Coverity tool warning apart from
> ignoring it?

So IIUC, this warning is generated by an external tool after static
analysis of the code ?

If yes, then just ignore the warning. We shouldn't try fixing the
kernel because a tool isn't smart enough to catch intentional
ignorance of the return value here.

-- 
viresh