linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] accel/qaic: Use pointer from memcpy() call for assignment in copy_partial_exec

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: <ce252b99-c011-428f-a89a-5792f14c2eaa@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:30:13 -0600
From: Jeff Hugo <jeff.hugo@....qualcomm.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Carl Vanderlip <carl.vanderlip@....qualcomm.com>,
        Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>,
        Pranjal Ramajor Asha Kanojiya <quic_pkanojiy@...cinc.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] accel/qaic: Use pointer from memcpy() call for assignment
 in copy_partial_exec_reqs()

On 10/31/2025 4:34 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:26:33 +0100
> 
> A pointer was assigned to a variable. The same pointer was used for
> the destination parameter of a memcpy() call.
> This function is documented in the way that the same value is returned.
> Thus convert two separate statements into a direct variable assignment for
> the return value from a memory copy action.
> 
> The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>

This does not match the address this patch was received from, therefore 
DCO does not appear to be satisfied.  I cannot accept this.

> ---
>   drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> index fa723a2bdfa9..c1b315d1689c 100644
> --- a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> +++ b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> @@ -1171,8 +1171,8 @@ static inline int copy_partial_exec_reqs(struct qaic_device *qdev, struct bo_sli
>   	 * Copy over the last entry. Here we need to adjust len to the left over
>   	 * size, and set src and dst to the entry it is copied to.
>   	 */
> -	last_req = fifo_at(dbc->req_q_base, (tail + first_n) % dbc->nelem);
> -	memcpy(last_req, reqs + slice->nents - 1, sizeof(*reqs));
> +	last_req = memcpy(fifo_at(dbc->req_q_base, (tail + first_n) % dbc->nelem),
> +			  reqs + slice->nents - 1, sizeof(*reqs));

The new version reads worse to me, so I do not consider this to be an 
improvement.  This is not a critical path, so I doubt any performance 
increase that may exist outweighs the impact to readability.

-Jeff