netdev - Re: [bug report] net/mlx5e: E-Switch, Maintain vhca_id to vport

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210210114820.GA741034@unreal>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 13:48:20 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     vladbu@...dia.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report] net/mlx5e: E-Switch, Maintain vhca_id to vport_num
 mapping

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:51:51AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Vlad Buslov,
>
> The patch 84ae9c1f29c0: "net/mlx5e: E-Switch, Maintain vhca_id to
> vport_num mapping" from Sep 23, 2020, leads to the following static
> checker warning:
>
> 	drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c:1170 mlx5_vport_get_other_func_cap()
> 	warn: odd binop '0x0 & 0x1'
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c
>   1168  int mlx5_vport_get_other_func_cap(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u16 function_id, void *out)
>   1169  {
>   1170          u16 opmod = (MLX5_CAP_GENERAL << 1) | (HCA_CAP_OPMOD_GET_MAX & 0x01);
>
> HCA_CAP_OPMOD_GET_MAX is zero.  The 0x01 is a magical number.
>
>   1171          u8 in[MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(query_hca_cap_in)] = {};
>   1172
>   1173          MLX5_SET(query_hca_cap_in, in, opcode, MLX5_CMD_OP_QUERY_HCA_CAP);
>   1174          MLX5_SET(query_hca_cap_in, in, op_mod, opmod);
>   1175          MLX5_SET(query_hca_cap_in, in, function_id, function_id);
>   1176          MLX5_SET(query_hca_cap_in, in, other_function, true);
>   1177          return mlx5_cmd_exec_inout(dev, query_hca_cap, in, out);
>   1178  }

Dan,

I'm running smatch which is based on 6193b3b71beb ("extra: fix some error pointer handling")
and I don't see this error. Should I run something special?

Thanks

>
> regards,
> dan carpenter