[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191119051331.291215311@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:18:57 +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, Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 137/239] ipmi:dmi: Ignore IPMI SMBIOS entries with a zero base address
From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
[ Upstream commit 1574608f5f4204440d6d9f52b971aba967664764 ]
Looking at logs from systems all over the place, it looks like tons
of broken systems exist that set the base address to zero. I can
only guess that is some sort of non-standard idea to mark the
interface as not being present. It can't be zero, anyway, so just
complain and ignore it.
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_dmi.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_dmi.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_dmi.c
index c3a23ec3e76f7..a37d9794170cc 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_dmi.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_dmi.c
@@ -197,6 +197,10 @@ static void __init dmi_decode_ipmi(const struct dmi_header *dm)
slave_addr = data[DMI_IPMI_SLAVEADDR];
memcpy(&base_addr, data + DMI_IPMI_ADDR, sizeof(unsigned long));
+ if (!base_addr) {
+ pr_err("Base address is zero, assuming no IPMI interface\n");
+ return;
+ }
if (len >= DMI_IPMI_VER2_LENGTH) {
if (type == IPMI_DMI_TYPE_SSIF) {
offset = 0;
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists