linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: amd8111: Convert PCIBIOS

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: <50e1c6a7-f583-4b5b-997b-2e505b3df0ec@moroto.mountain>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 17:26:06 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: amd8111: Convert PCIBIOS_* return codes to
 errnos

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 05:11:32PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 04:23:44PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-amd8111.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-amd8111.c
> > > index 6f3ded619c8b..3377667a28de 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-amd8111.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-amd8111.c
> > > @@ -195,8 +195,10 @@ static int __init amd_gpio_init(void)
> > >  
> > >  found:
> > >  	err = pci_read_config_dword(pdev, 0x58, &gp.pmbase);
> > > -	if (err)
> > > +	if (err) {
> > > +		err = pcibios_err_to_errno(err);
> > 
> > The patch is correct, but is the CC to stable necessary?  Is this a real
> > concern?
> > 
> > Most callers don't check.  Linus Torvalds, once said something to the
> > effect that if your PCI bus starts failing, there isn't anything the
> > operating system can do, so checking is pointless.  The only fix is to
> > buy new hardware.  There was a hotpluggable PCI back in the day but I
> > don't think it exists any more.
> 
> I don't mind if the CC stable isn't there.

I don't mind either way.  I was hoping you were going to say it was for
some new hotswap hardware Intel was working on.

Smatch deletes all the failure paths from the pci_read_ functions
because otherwise you end up with a lot of warnings that no one cares
about.  Uninitialized variables mostly?

regards,
dan carpenter