linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: Fix kernel test robot sparse warning

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: <20250313095028.000068e5@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:50:28 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Zaid Alali <zaidal@...amperecomputing.com>
CC: <rafael@...nel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <james.morse@....com>,
	<tony.luck@...el.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <Benjamin.Cheatham@....com>,
	<Avadhut.Naik@....com>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <arnd@...db.de>,
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	<sthanneeru.opensrc@...ron.com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: Fix kernel test robot sparse
 warning

On Thu,  6 Mar 2025 15:48:04 -0800
Zaid Alali <zaidal@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:

> This patch fixes the kernel test robot warning reported here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202410241620.oApALow5-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zaid Alali <zaidal@...amperecomputing.com>
Follow up below.

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c
> index 04731a5b01fa..b40ed44c4983 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c
> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(einj_mutex);
>   */
>  bool einj_initialized __ro_after_init;
>  
> -static void *einj_param;
> +static void __iomem *einj_param;
>  
>  static void einj_exec_ctx_init(struct apei_exec_context *ctx)
>  {
> @@ -214,21 +214,23 @@ static void check_vendor_extension(u64 paddr,
>  				   struct set_error_type_with_address *v5param)
>  {
>  	int	offset = v5param->vendor_extension;
> -	struct	vendor_error_type_extension *v;
> +	struct	vendor_error_type_extension v;
> +	void __iomem *p;
>  	u32	sbdf;
>  
>  	if (!offset)
>  		return;
> -	v = acpi_os_map_iomem(paddr + offset, sizeof(*v));
> -	if (!v)
> +	p = acpi_os_map_iomem(paddr + offset, sizeof(v));
> +	if (!p)
>  		return;
> -	get_oem_vendor_struct(paddr, offset, v);
> -	sbdf = v->pcie_sbdf;
> +	memcpy_fromio(&v, p, sizeof(v));
> +	get_oem_vendor_struct(paddr, offset, &v);
> +	sbdf = v.pcie_sbdf;
>  	sprintf(vendor_dev, "%x:%x:%x.%x vendor_id=%x device_id=%x rev_id=%x\n",
>  		sbdf >> 24, (sbdf >> 16) & 0xff,
>  		(sbdf >> 11) & 0x1f, (sbdf >> 8) & 0x7,
> -		 v->vendor_id, v->device_id, v->rev_id);
> -	acpi_os_unmap_iomem(v, sizeof(*v));
> +		 v.vendor_id, v.device_id, v.rev_id);
> +	acpi_os_unmap_iomem(p, sizeof(v));
>  }
>  
>  static void *einj_get_parameter_address(void)

Doesn't this return type want the __iomem marking as well?

> @@ -252,26 +254,30 @@ static void *einj_get_parameter_address(void)
>  		entry++;