In linux-stable-5.15.13, this file has been removed and combined
to `drivers/ata/pata_platform.c` without this bug.
But in the older LTS kernels, like 5.10.90, this bug still exists.
As the possible failure of the devres_alloc(), the devm_ioremap() and
devm_ioport_map() may return NULL pointer.
And then, the 'base' and 'alt_base' are used in plat_ide_setup_ports().
Therefore, it should be better to add the check in order to avoid the
dereference of the NULL pointer.
Actually, it introduced the bug from commit 8cb1f567f4c0
("ide: Platform IDE driver") and we can know from the commit message
that it tended to be similar to the `drivers/ata/pata_platform.c`.
But actually, even the first time pata_platform was built,
commit a20c9e820864 ("[PATCH] ata: Generic platform_device libata driver"),
there was no the bug, as there was a check after the ioremap().
So possibly the bug was caused by ide itself.
Fixes: 8cb1f567f4c0 ("ide: Platform IDE driver")
Cc: [email protected]#5.10
Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <[email protected]>
---
Changelog
v1 -> v2
* Change 1. Correct the fixes tag and commit message.
v2 -> v3
* Change 1. Correct the code.
---
drivers/ide/ide_platform.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c b/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
index 91639fd6c276..5500c5afb3ca 100644
--- a/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
@@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ static int plat_ide_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
alt_base = devm_ioport_map(&pdev->dev,
res_alt->start, resource_size(res_alt));
}
+ if (!base || !alt_base) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
memset(&hw, 0, sizeof(hw));
plat_ide_setup_ports(&hw, base, alt_base, pdata, res_irq->start);
--
2.25.1
On 2022/01/07 21:53, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> In linux-stable-5.15.13, this file has been removed and combined
> to `drivers/ata/pata_platform.c` without this bug.
> But in the older LTS kernels, like 5.10.90, this bug still exists.
> As the possible failure of the devres_alloc(), the devm_ioremap() and
> devm_ioport_map() may return NULL pointer.
> And then, the 'base' and 'alt_base' are used in plat_ide_setup_ports().
> Therefore, it should be better to add the check in order to avoid the
> dereference of the NULL pointer.
> Actually, it introduced the bug from commit 8cb1f567f4c0
> ("ide: Platform IDE driver") and we can know from the commit message
> that it tended to be similar to the `drivers/ata/pata_platform.c`.
> But actually, even the first time pata_platform was built,
> commit a20c9e820864 ("[PATCH] ata: Generic platform_device libata driver"),
> there was no the bug, as there was a check after the ioremap().
> So possibly the bug was caused by ide itself.
>
> Fixes: 8cb1f567f4c0 ("ide: Platform IDE driver")
> Cc: [email protected]#5.10
Please keep the space before the #
Cc: [email protected] #5.10
> Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changelog
>
> v1 -> v2
>
> * Change 1. Correct the fixes tag and commit message.
>
> v2 -> v3
>
> * Change 1. Correct the code.
As commented before, what exactly was corrected ? That is what needs to be
mentioned here. In any case, I fail to see what code change you added between v2
and v3. The code changes are identical in the 2 versions.
> ---
> drivers/ide/ide_platform.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c b/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
> index 91639fd6c276..5500c5afb3ca 100644
> --- a/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide_platform.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ static int plat_ide_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> alt_base = devm_ioport_map(&pdev->dev,
> res_alt->start, resource_size(res_alt));
> }
> + if (!base || !alt_base) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> memset(&hw, 0, sizeof(hw));
> plat_ide_setup_ports(&hw, base, alt_base, pdata, res_irq->start);
Greg,
The above patch is OK but cannot be applied in the current kernel:
* The Legacy IDE drivers were removed in 5.14, replaced by the already existing
* The current equivalent libata driver (drivers/ata/pata_platform.c) already has
the above error check.
So I think this patch needs to go directly to stable # 5.10 and earlier LTS
kernels. Can you take it ?
Feel free to add:
Acked-by: Damien Le Moal <[email protected]>
Note that I was not the maintainer of the IDE drivers. If more appropriate
please feel free to replace that with a Reviewed-by tag.
Thanks !
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:53:42PM +0800, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Cc: [email protected]#5.10
>
> Please keep the space before the #
>
> Cc: [email protected] #5.10
Actually, I added the space before, but the when I use the tool
'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check my format, it told me a warning
that it should not have space.
The warning is as follow:
WARNING: email address '[email protected] #5.10' might be
better as '[email protected]#5.10'
So I have no idea what is correct.
Is the tool outdated?
If so, I will correct my cc and please update the tool.
> As commented before, what exactly was corrected ? That is what needs to be
> mentioned here. In any case, I fail to see what code change you added between v2
> and v3. The code changes are identical in the 2 versions.
Thanks, I will make the changelog more clear.
In fact, in the v2 I was careless to write '!!alt_base'.
So I removed the redundant '!' in v3.
Please tell me the right cc format, and then I will submit a new v3,
without the problems above.
Sincerely thanks,
Jiang
On 2022/01/08 12:55, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:53:42PM +0800, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> Cc: [email protected]#5.10
>>
>> Please keep the space before the #
>>
>> Cc: [email protected] #5.10
>
> Actually, I added the space before, but the when I use the tool
> 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check my format, it told me a warning
> that it should not have space.
>
> The warning is as follow:
> WARNING: email address '[email protected] #5.10' might be
> better as '[email protected]#5.10'
>
> So I have no idea what is correct.
> Is the tool outdated?
> If so, I will correct my cc and please update the tool.
>
>> As commented before, what exactly was corrected ? That is what needs to be
>> mentioned here. In any case, I fail to see what code change you added between v2
>> and v3. The code changes are identical in the 2 versions.
>
> Thanks, I will make the changelog more clear.
> In fact, in the v2 I was careless to write '!!alt_base'.
> So I removed the redundant '!' in v3.
>
> Please tell me the right cc format, and then I will submit a new v3,
> without the problems above.
Cc: [email protected] # 5.10
Should work.
>
> Sincerely thanks,
> Jiang
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 04:53:39PM +0800, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>>> Cc: [email protected]#5.10
>>>
>>> Please keep the space before the #
>>>
>>> Cc: [email protected] #5.10
>>
>> Actually, I added the space before, but the when I use the tool
>> 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check my format, it told me a warning
>> that it should not have space.
>>
>> The warning is as follow:
>> WARNING: email address '[email protected] #5.10' might be
>> better as '[email protected]#5.10'
>
> Cc: [email protected] # 5.10
>
> Should work.
I used 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check it, giving me the warning again.
The warning is as follow:
WARNING: email address '[email protected] # 5.10' might be better as
'[email protected]# 5.10'
And if I use the '[email protected]# 5.10', warning too.
The warning is as follow:
WARNING: email address '[email protected]# 5.10' might be better as
'[email protected]#5.10'
It seems that the only non-warning format is '[email protected]#5.10'.
Sincerely thanks,
Jiang
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 10:01:42PM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 04:53:39PM +0800, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >>>> Cc: [email protected]#5.10
> >>>
> >>> Please keep the space before the #
> >>>
> >>> Cc: [email protected] #5.10
> >>
> >> Actually, I added the space before, but the when I use the tool
> >> 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check my format, it told me a warning
> >> that it should not have space.
> >>
> >> The warning is as follow:
> >> WARNING: email address '[email protected] #5.10' might be
> >> better as '[email protected]#5.10'
> >
> > Cc: [email protected] # 5.10
> >
> > Should work.
>
> I used 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' to check it, giving me the warning again.
>
> The warning is as follow:
> WARNING: email address '[email protected] # 5.10' might be better as
> '[email protected]# 5.10'
>
> And if I use the '[email protected]# 5.10', warning too.
>
> The warning is as follow:
> WARNING: email address '[email protected]# 5.10' might be better as
> '[email protected]#5.10'
>
> It seems that the only non-warning format is '[email protected]#5.10'.
>
> Sincerely thanks,
> Jiang
>
The checkpatch.pl in 5.10.90 fails to parse the line as shown
above. That is fixed in commit fccaebf00e60 ("checkpatch: improve
email parsing") in the current tree.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:23:29PM +0800, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> The checkpatch.pl in 5.10.90 fails to parse the line as shown
> above. That is fixed in commit fccaebf00e60 ("checkpatch: improve
> email parsing") in the current tree.
Thanks, I have sent a new v3 with the correct cc.
Sincerely thanks,
Jiang