[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32f42513-0c55-042e-2530-c58d980a9ce0@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:39:48 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Niedermayr, BENEDIKT" <benedikt.niedermayr@...mens.com>,
"rogerq@...nel.org" <rogerq@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues
On 08/11/2022 09:02, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 10:56 +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/2022 10:53, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> Hi Benedikt,
>>>
>>> On 04/11/2022 21:33, coverity-bot wrote:
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
>>>> Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project:
>>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscan.coverity.com%2Fprojects%2Flinux-next-weekly-scan&data=05%7C01%7Cbenedikt.niedermayr%40siemens.com%7C1a25cc8704524f24224108dac09dfab7%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638034081994087461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=W1KlBKg9nwEDfFAbqW6Jw7v1d46HQLj8RX8wlZ9RHyc%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>> You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
>>>> lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
>>>>
>>>> Wed Nov 2 10:02:39 2022 -0400
>>>> 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions")
>>>>
>>>> Coverity reported the following:
>>>>
>>>> *** CID 1527139: Control flow issues (NO_EFFECT)
>>>> drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c:1048 in gpmc_is_valid_waitpin()
>>>> 1042 spin_unlock(&gpmc_mem_lock);
>>>> 1043 }
>>>> 1044 EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_free);
>>>> 1045
>>>> 1046 static bool gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(u32 waitpin)
>>>
>>> We will need to change this waitpin argument to int.
>>> In addition we will also need to change
>>> struct gpmc_waitpin->pin and struct gpmc_setting->wait_pin
>>> to int as in the code we are relying on GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID logic which is -1.
>>
>> Another alternative with less churn is to leave them as u32
>> but make GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID set to a large positive number.
> Ok, I will fix that.
> Do I need to send a new fix-patch on top the current patch series?
> Or should I just send only the bugfix-patch for the coverity-bot?
>
A bugfix patch on current next is ok.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists