linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] regulator: IRQ based event/error notification helpers

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 06:24:32 +0300
From:   Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "agross@...nel.org" <agross@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] regulator: IRQ based event/error notification
 helpers

Hi Andy, All,

On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 23:20 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:46 PM kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> wrote:

> > 
> >    include/linux/bitops.h:35:2: warning: this 'for' clause does not
> > guard... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> >       35 |  for ((bit) = find_first_bit((addr), (size));  \
> >          |  ^~~
> >    drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:242:3: note: in expansion of
> > macro 'for_each_set_bit'
> >      242 |   for_each_set_bit(j, &stat->notifs, BITS_PER_TYPE(stat-
> > >notifs))
> >          |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >    drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:244:4: note: ...this statement,
> > but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by
> > the 'for'
> 
> Seems like missed {}
> 
> Matti, there is a serious question: how had you tested this...

I actually did. I did not just run rebase for the series and threw new
version but I actually did run this in real HW, with real break-out
board and with a fresh info print to see the event being sent.

> (besides obvious compilation error)
> Perhaps you have to fix your process somewhere to avoid missing
> important steps?

Yes. Can't deny this. And process fix should be simple. If code/patch
needs a change (even a print removal/print severity change/parameter
change)  - then it needs to be tested again prior formatting the
patches.

Sorry folks.

--Matti