linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv/efi_stub: Fix get_boot_hartid_from

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: <9cd9f149-d2ea-eb55-b774-8d817b9b6cc9@gmx.de>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:24:22 +0100
From:   Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>
To:     Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv/efi_stub: Fix get_boot_hartid_from_fdt() return
 value

On 2/14/22 10:12, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jan 28 2022, Sunil V L wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c
>> index 380e4e251399..9c460843442f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ typedef void __noreturn (*jump_kernel_func)(unsigned int, unsigned long);
>>
>>   static u32 hartid;
>>
>> -static u32 get_boot_hartid_from_fdt(void)
>> +static int get_boot_hartid_from_fdt(void)
>
> I think the function should be renamed, now that it no longer returns
> the hart ID, but initializes a static variable as a side effect.  Thus
> it no longer "gets", but "sets".
>

set_boot_hartid() implies that the caller can change the boot hart ID.
As this is not a case this name obviously would be a misnomer.

Best regards

Heinrich