Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:42:56 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        daniel.kiper@oracle.com, dpsmith@apertussolutions.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        luto@amacapital.net, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com,
        trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/boot: Fix memremap of setup_indirect structures
Message-ID: <YheLYDdG3w6WGhSM@zn.tnic>
References: <1643303056-22272-1-git-send-email-ross.philipson@oracle.com>
 <1643303056-22272-2-git-send-email-ross.philipson@oracle.com>
 <YgabtFd4Nkpgi+oW@zn.tnic>
 <2e584fc4-163a-0af4-abe0-9c14996918f2@oracle.com>
 <Ygvy8j9E7WPo6dx0@zn.tnic>
 <6e5763be-3e9c-0199-24ea-e4f5b226d990@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6e5763be-3e9c-0199-24ea-e4f5b226d990@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 04:01:32PM -0500, Ross Philipson wrote:
> In the ioremap.c module, the check for NULL is only missing in the
> functions we updated but the lack of a check was already there before
> these changes went in.
> 
> In the setup.c and e820.c modules, the check for NULL is missing in the
> functions we updated but the lack of a check was already there before
> these changes went in in those functions. The lack of early_memremap()
> NULL checks can also be found in other functions in those modules.

I don't know how to understand this statement: are you saying that,
because there are other cases where - for whatever reason - the retval
check is not taking place - you should not do it either?

Because I can see other places where the return value is checked. I
mean, if the return value check doesn't matter, why not make this
function simply void and not bother at all?

> Fixing it in other functions and possibly elsewhere in the arch/x86 code
> seems to be out of scope for this patch set. We could send separate
> patches and hunt down other places this check is missing.

That would be appreciated.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette