linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/psp: fix incorrect logic when checking asic

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8f3385e9-4e53-b4b4-11ac-f77ec88bfc64@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:26:20 +0100
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     wharms@....de
Cc:     Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        David Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/psp: fix incorrect logic when checking
 asic_type

On 04/07/2019 17:22, walter harms wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.07.2019 16:23, schrieb Colin King:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> Currently the check of the asic_type is always returning true because
>> of the use of ||.  Fix this by using && instead.  Also break overly
>> wide line.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Constant expression result")
>> Fixes: dab70ff24db6 ("drm/amdgpu/psp: add psp support for navi14")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> index 527dc371598d..e4afd34e3034 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> @@ -540,7 +540,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>  
>>  	case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_RLC_G:
>>  		*sram_offset = 0x2000;
>> -		if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> +		if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> +		    adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>>  			*sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_ADDR);
>>  			*sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_DATA);
>>  		} else {
>> @@ -551,7 +552,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>  
>>  	case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_SDMA0:
>>  		*sram_offset = 0x0;
>> -		if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> +		if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> +		    adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>>  			*sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_ADDR);
>>  			*sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_DATA);
>>  		} else {
> 
> 
> maybe it is better to use
> 		if (adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI10 ||
> 		    adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI14) {
> 
> i guess tha was intended here and it is more easy to read.
> ppl are bad in non-non reading.

I'm not sure what the original intent was now.  Lets see what the folk
at AMD say about this.

> 
> re,
>  wh
>