[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c22b679-853d-410c-973a-ba3c91a54b84@suswa.mountain>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:41:06 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Timothy Hayes <timothy.hayes@....com>,
Sascha Bischoff <sascha.bischoff@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip/gic-v5: Fix error handling in
gicv5_its_irq_domain_alloc()
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:25:15AM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:38:22PM -0500, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > There are two issues to fix in this code:
> > 1) If gicv5_alloc_lpi() fails the original code was checking the wrong
> > variable. Fix the mixup between "ret" and "lpi".
> > 2) If irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent() fails, then clean up all the loop
> > iterations instead of just the current iteration.
> >
> > Fixes: 57d72196dfc8 ("irqchip/gic-v5: Add GICv5 ITS support")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v5-its.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v5-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v5-its.c
> > index 55360ae9f1f6..8cc8563e27d5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v5-its.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v5-its.c
> > @@ -949,15 +949,18 @@ static int gicv5_its_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int vi
> > device_id = its_dev->device_id;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
> > - lpi = gicv5_alloc_lpi();
> > + ret = gicv5_alloc_lpi();
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > pr_debug("Failed to find free LPI!\n");
> > goto out_eventid;
>
> This should be:
>
> goto out_free_lpi;
>
Yes, you're right.
> otherwise we miss cleaning up for [0, i - 1] on LPI alloc failure.
>
> I can fix it up - not sure it is worth splitting it into two patches,
> just let me know please how you want me to handle it.
I don't think it should be split up. As a reviewer I would be annoyed
by a split up version of this.
I'm a little bit surprised by the offer to fix it up for me... Is this
going through your tree? It's probably easiest if I just send a v2...
Let me do that.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists