[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629140137.GK177734@dell>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:01:37 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: sprd-sc27xx-spi: Fix divide by zero when
allocating register offset/mask
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:32:14PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Since ddata->irqs[] is already zeroed when allocated by devm_kcalloc() and
> > dividing 0 by anything is still 0, there is no need to re-assign
> > ddata->irqs[i].* values. Instead, it should be safe to begin at 1.
> >
> > This fixes the following W=1 warning:
> >
> > drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c:255 sprd_pmic_probe() debug: sval_binop_unsigned: divide by zero
> >
> > Cc: Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>
> > Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>
> > Cc: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > index c305e941e435c..694a7d429ccff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int sprd_pmic_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > ddata->irq_chip.irqs = ddata->irqs;
> > - for (i = 0; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
> > + for (i = 1; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
> > ddata->irqs[i].reg_offset = i / pdata->num_irqs;
> > ddata->irqs[i].mask = BIT(i % pdata->num_irqs);
> > }
>
> This doesn't look right either.
>
> First, the loop is never executed if num_irqs is zero.
The point of the patch is that 0 entries are never processed.
However, what I appear to have overlooked is that BIT(0 % x) is not 0,
it's 1.
> Second, the current code looks bogus too as reg_offset is always set to
> zero and mask to BIT(i)...
Heh. I wonder if/how this was tested.
I'm going to wait to hear from the authors before attempting to fix
this again.
Baolin, Could you please clarify this for us please?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists