lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] virtio-pci: Remove wrong address verification in vp_del_vqs()
From
On 4/14/22 23:30, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote:
> GCC 12 enhanced -Waddress when comparing array address to null [0],
> which warns:
>
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c: In function ‘vp_del_vqs’:
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c:257:29: warning: the comparison will always evaluate as ‘true’ for the pointer operand in ‘vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks + (sizetype)((long unsigned int)i * 256)’ must not be NULL [-Waddress]
> 257 | if (vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i])
> | ^~~~~~
>
> In fact, the verification is comparing the result of a pointer
> arithmetic, the address "msix_affinity_masks + i", which will always
> evaluate to true.
>
> Under the hood, free_cpumask_var() calls kfree(), which is safe to pass
> NULL, not requiring non-null verification. So remove the verification
> to make compiler happy (happy compiler, happy life).
>
> [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102103
>
> Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index d724f676608b..5046efcffb4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -254,8 +254,7 @@ void vp_del_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>
> if (vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks) {
> for (i = 0; i < vp_dev->msix_vectors; i++)
> - if (vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i])
> - free_cpumask_var(vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i]);
> + free_cpumask_var(vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i]);
> }
>
> if (vp_dev->msix_enabled) {

After I sent this message, I realized that Christophe (copied here)
had already proposed a fix:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220414150855.2407137-4-dinechin@redhat.com/

Christophe,

Since free_cpumask_var() calls kfree() and kfree() is null-safe,
can we just drop this null verification and call free_cpumask_var() right away?

--
Murilo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-15 05:52    [W:0.207 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site