lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] memory: mtk-smi: Fix a null dereference for the ostd
From
On 01/11/2021 07:09, Yong Wu wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 19:35 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28/10/2021 07:50, Yong Wu wrote:
>>> We add the ostd setting for mt8195. It introduces a abort for the
>>> previous SoC which doesn't have ostd setting. This is the log:
>>>
>>> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
>>> 0000000000000080
>>> ...
>>> pc : mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general+0x64/0x130
>>> lr : mtk_smi_larb_resume+0x54/0x98
>>> ...
>>> Call trace:
>>> mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general+0x64/0x130
>>> pm_generic_runtime_resume+0x2c/0x48
>>> __genpd_runtime_resume+0x30/0xa8
>>> genpd_runtime_resume+0x94/0x2c8
>>> __rpm_callback+0x44/0x150
>>> rpm_callback+0x6c/0x78
>>> rpm_resume+0x310/0x558
>>> __pm_runtime_resume+0x3c/0x88
>>>
>>> In the code: larbostd = larb->larb_gen->ostd[larb->larbid],
>>> if "larb->larb_gen->ostd" is null, the "larbostd" is the offset, it
>>> is
>>> also a valid value, thus, use the larb->larb_gen->ostd as the
>>> condition
>>> inside the "for" loop.
>>
>> You need to write more clearly, what you are fixing here.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>> Could you help review and conside this as a fix for the mt8195
>>> patchset?
>>> The mt8195 patchset are not in mainline, thus, I don't know its
>>> sha-id,
>>> and don't add Fixes tag.
>>> Thanks
>>> ---
>>> drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
>>> index b883dcc0bbfa..0262a59a2d6e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
>>> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static void
>>> mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general(struct device *dev)
>>> if (MTK_SMI_CAPS(flags_general, MTK_SMI_FLAG_SW_FLAG))
>>> writel_relaxed(SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG_1, larb->base +
>>> SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG);
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX && larbostd &&
>>> !!larbostd[i]; i++)
>>> + for (i = 0; i < SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX && larb->larb_gen->ostd &&
>>> !!larbostd[i]; i++)
>>> writel_relaxed(larbostd[i], larb->base +
>>> SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORTx(i));
>>
>> The code does not look good. You have already a dereference at line
>> 244:
>>
>> const u8 *larbostd = larb->larb_gen->ostd[larb->larbid];
>
> if larb->larb_gen->ostd is null, larbostd is the offset, e.g. 0x80 in
> the log above. thus, we can not use "larbostd[i]" in the "for" loop.
>
> sorry for the unreadable. In this case, is the change ok?

No, it's ok, I did not check the type of ostd and it's confusing a bit
that it is defined as a pointer to an array but you actually use it as
array of pointers to 32-elemenet arrays... Anyway I was mistaken and
there will be indeed no dereference at the assignment, but for code
clarity I would still prefer to do the check earlier, so:

>
> or like this:
>
> -const u8 *larbostd = larb->larb_gen->ostd[larb->larbid];
> +const u8 *larbostd = larb->larb_gen->ostd ? larb->larb_gen-ostd[larb-
>> larbid] : NULL;

Although I think now the proper type should be explicit.
mtk_smi_larb_mt8195_ostd is an 28-element array of
SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX-element u8 arrays, therefore struct
mtk_smi_larb_gen should be:
const u8 (*ostd)[][SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX];

Right?


Best regards,
Krzysztof

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-01 09:46    [W:7.033 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site