[bug report] i3c: master: svc: Add Silvaco I3C master driver
Dan Carpenter
dan.carpenter at oracle.com
Tue Feb 16 13:44:19 EST 2021
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:21:01PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the report.
>
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> wrote on Tue, 9 Feb 2021
> 13:57:28 +0300:
>
> > Hello Miquel Raynal,
> >
> > The patch dd3c52846d59: "i3c: master: svc: Add Silvaco I3C master
> > driver" from Jan 21, 2021, leads to the following static checker
> > warning:
> >
> > drivers/i3c/master/svc-i3c-master.c:394 svc_i3c_master_ibi_work()
> > error: uninitialized symbol 'dev'.
> >
> > drivers/i3c/master/svc-i3c-master.c
> > 364 status = readl(master->regs + SVC_I3C_MSTATUS);
> > 365 ibitype = SVC_I3C_MSTATUS_IBITYPE(status);
> > 366 ibiaddr = SVC_I3C_MSTATUS_IBIADDR(status);
> > 367
> > 368 /* Handle the critical responses to IBI's */
> > 369 switch (ibitype) {
> > 370 case SVC_I3C_MSTATUS_IBITYPE_IBI:
> > 371 dev = svc_i3c_master_dev_from_addr(master, ibiaddr);
> > 372 if (!dev)
> > 373 svc_i3c_master_nack_ibi(master);
> > 374 else
> > 375 svc_i3c_master_handle_ibi(master, dev);
> >
> > "dev" only valid on this path.
> >
> > 376 break;
> > 377 case SVC_I3C_MSTATUS_IBITYPE_HOT_JOIN:
> > 378 svc_i3c_master_ack_ibi(master, false);
> > 379 break;
> > 380 case SVC_I3C_MSTATUS_IBITYPE_MASTER_REQUEST:
> > 381 svc_i3c_master_nack_ibi(master);
> > 382 break;
> > 383 default:
> > 384 break;
> > 385 }
> > 386
> > 387 /*
> > 388 * If an error happened, we probably got interrupted and the exchange
> > 389 * timedout. In this case we just drop everything, emit a stop and wait
> > 390 * for the slave to interrupt again.
> > 391 */
> > 392 if (svc_i3c_master_error(master)) {
> > 393 if (master->ibi.tbq_slot) {
> > 394 data = i3c_dev_get_master_data(dev);
> > ^^^
> > Dereferenced here.
>
> Only svc_i3c_master_handle_ibi() populates master->ibi.tbq_slot, so dev
> will only be dereferenced if svc_i3c_master_handle_ibi() was executed,
> which only happens if dev is valid.
>
> I don't think there is a risk here, however if robots really are
> unhappy we might add an extra sanity level by checking dev explicitly,
> but this would be purely useless on a practical point of view.
Nah. I think this works. It's fine. Don't do things just to make the
robots happy.
regards,
dan carpenter
More information about the linux-i3c
mailing list