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:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:48:42 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Vikram Sethi <vsethi@nvidia.com>,
        Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: Fix use of uninitialised results
 structure
Message-ID: <20230718084842.6edna54m5njijdiz@bogus>
References: <20230717171702.424253-1-punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
 <86351lvcl9.wl-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86351lvcl9.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 09:38:26AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 18:17:02 +0100,
> Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Commit 35727af2b15d ("irqchip/gicv3: Workaround for NVIDIA erratum
> > T241-FABRIC-4") moved the initialisation of the SoC version to
> > arm_smccc_version_init() but forgot to update the results structure
> > and it's usage.
> > 
> > Fix the use of the uninitialised results structure and update the
> > error strings.
> > 
> > Fixes: 35727af2b15d ("irqchip/gicv3: Workaround for NVIDIA erratum T241-FABRIC-4")
> > Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
> > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Vikram Sethi <vsethi@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c b/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > index 890eb454599a..1990263fbba0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ static struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
> >  
> >  static int __init smccc_soc_init(void)
> >  {
> > -	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> >  	int soc_id_rev, soc_id_version;
> >  	static char soc_id_str[20], soc_id_rev_str[12];
> >  	static char soc_id_jep106_id_str[12];
> > @@ -49,13 +48,13 @@ static int __init smccc_soc_init(void)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (soc_id_version < 0) {
> > -		pr_err("ARCH_SOC_ID(0) returned error: %lx\n", res.a0);
> > +		pr_err("Invalid SoC Version: %x\n", soc_id_version);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	soc_id_rev = arm_smccc_get_soc_id_revision();
> >  	if (soc_id_rev < 0) {
> > -		pr_err("ARCH_SOC_ID(1) returned error: %lx\n", res.a0);
> > +		pr_err("Invalid SoC Revision: %x\n", soc_id_rev);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> 
> Ah, indeed. Well caught. FWIW:
> 
> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> 
> Sudeep, I assume you'll take that one directly?
> 

Sure I will route it via (arm-)soc team.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep