linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] platform/x86:intel/pmc: Check return value of ioremap

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: <21b8777a-827b-4729-a8d3-36024983dc2c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 23:53:47 -0700
From: Xi Pardee <xi.pardee@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: irenic.rajneesh@...il.com, david.e.box@...ux.intel.com,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] platform/x86:intel/pmc: Check return value of
 ioremap


On 8/29/2024 4:06 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Xi Pardee wrote:
>
>> Check the return value of ioremap operation and return ENOMEM when
>> the operation fails for better error handling.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xi Pardee <xi.pardee@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/ssram_telemetry.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/ssram_telemetry.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/ssram_telemetry.c
>> index 73c727042ca6..f625d39d1aa3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/ssram_telemetry.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/ssram_telemetry.c
>> @@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ pmc_core_ssram_get_pmc(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev, unsigned int pmc_idx, u32 offset)
>>   	ssram_base = ssram_pcidev->resource[0].start;
>>   	tmp_ssram = ioremap(ssram_base, SSRAM_HDR_SIZE);
>>   
>> +	if (!tmp_ssram)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>>   	if (pmc_idx != PMC_IDX_MAIN) {
>>   		/*
>>   		 * The secondary PMC BARS (which are behind hidden PCI devices)
> Is this a fix to the current code? And should have Fixes tag and go
> first because of that?
This is an improvement of the current code. We should check the value of 
ioremap before using it to avoid
failure in the later process. I can add a fixes tag to it. Should this 
patch be its own patch series and not
include in this one? Or should it be moved to be the first patch of this 
series?

Thanks!
Xi
>