linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the pm tree

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

Message-ID: <16643843.udE4Cbaid0@kreacher>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:26:18 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     wen.yang99@....com.cn
Cc:     sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the pm tree

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 7:46:29 AM CEST wen.yang99@....com.cn wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the pm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> > 
> > drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c: In function 'pas_cpufreq_cpu_init':
> > drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c:199:1: warning: label 'out_unmap_sdcpwr' defined but not used [-Wunused-label]
> > out_unmap_sdcpwr:
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > Introduced by commit
> > 
> > f43e075f7252 ("cpufreq/pasemi: fix an use-after-free in pas_cpufreq_cpu_init()")
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> We need to delete the useless code here:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c
> index 1f0beb7..624c34a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -195,9 +195,6 @@ static int pas_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> 
>         return cpufreq_generic_init(policy, pas_freqs, get_gizmo_latency());
> 
> -out_unmap_sdcpwr:
> -       iounmap(sdcpwr_mapbase);
> -
>  out_unmap_sdcasr:
>         iounmap(sdcasr_mapbase);
>  out:

I'm dropping commit f43e075f7252 from my linux-next branch, so please send a new version
of that patch with the issue fixed.

If you consider alternatives to the patch, please describe them in the message section between
the patch and the changelog.