linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/20] misc: genwqe: card_base: Do not pass unused argument 'fatal

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: <20200630091020.GJ1179328@dell>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:10:20 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     haver <haver@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Jung <mijung@....net>,
        Michael Ruettger <michael@...ra.de>,
        Frank Haverkamp <haver@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Joerg-Stephan Vogt <jsvogt@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] misc: genwqe: card_base: Do not pass unused
 argument 'fatal_err'

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, haver wrote:

> On 2020-06-29 16:04, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 'fatal_err' is taken as an argument to a static function which is only
> > invoked once.  During this invocation 'fatal_err' is not set.  There
> > doesn't appear to be a good reason to keep it around.
> > 
> > Also fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning:
> > 
> >  drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c:588: warning: Function parameter or
> > member 'fatal_err' not described in 'genwqe_recover_card'
> > 
> > Cc: Michael Jung <mijung@....net>
> > Cc: Michael Ruettger <michael@...ra.de>
> > Cc: Frank Haverkamp <haver@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Joerg-Stephan Vogt <jsvogt@...ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c | 18 +++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c
> > b/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c
> > index bceebf49de2d5..809a6f46f6de3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c
> > @@ -569,30 +569,18 @@ static int genwqe_stop(struct genwqe_dev *cd)
> > 
> >  /**
> >   * genwqe_recover_card() - Try to recover the card if it is possible
> > - *
> > - * If fatal_err is set no register access is possible anymore. It is
> > - * likely that genwqe_start fails in that situation. Proper error
> > - * handling is required in this case.
> > + * @cd: GenWQE device information
> >   *
> >   * genwqe_bus_reset() will cause the pci code to call genwqe_remove()
> >   * and later genwqe_probe() for all virtual functions.
> >   */
> > -static int genwqe_recover_card(struct genwqe_dev *cd, int fatal_err)
> > +static int genwqe_recover_card(struct genwqe_dev *cd)
> >  {
> >  	int rc;
> >  	struct pci_dev *pci_dev = cd->pci_dev;
> > 
> >  	genwqe_stop(cd);
> > 
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Make sure chip is not reloaded to maintain FFDC. Write SLU
> > -	 * Reset Register, CPLDReset field to 0.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (!fatal_err) {
> > -		cd->softreset = 0x70ull;
> > -		__genwqe_writeq(cd, IO_SLC_CFGREG_SOFTRESET, cd->softreset);
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	rc = genwqe_bus_reset(cd);
> >  	if (rc != 0) {
> >  		dev_err(&pci_dev->dev,
> > @@ -958,7 +946,7 @@ static int genwqe_health_thread(void *data)
> > 
> >  			cd->card_state = GENWQE_CARD_FATAL_ERROR;
> > 
> > -			rc = genwqe_recover_card(cd, 0);
> > +			rc = genwqe_recover_card(cd);
> >  			if (rc < 0) {
> >  				/* FIXME Card is unusable and needs unbind! */
> >  				goto fatal_error;
> 
> I think this one I want to keep. Since fatal_err is 0, !fatal_error is 1 and
> the register write is actually executed.

Ah yes, good catch.

What if we *always* did instead then?

> I also want to keep the parameter even though it is only used with 0. The
> register bit causes a less drastic recovery, but if we would discover that
> that is not working ok, we rather discard the debug data we get in this case
> instead of letting the recovery fail. I think it does not hurt to keep it.

I'm not 100% against it, but it is dead code.

> Maybe you can add a comment?

If you really want to keep it, I can just update the kerneldoc
instead.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog