| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The device tree compiler gives the following warning:
/syscon@ff100000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without
"ranges" or child "reg" property
Since the pmygrf node only has an io-domains child node that has no
reg property, remove the two properties from the pmugrf node to silence
the warning.
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200327030414.5903-6-wens@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
The device tree compiler gives the following warning:
/syscon@ff100000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without
"ranges" or child "reg" property
Since none of the grf node's direct child nodes have any reg properties,
remove the two properties from the grf node to silence the warning.
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200327030414.5903-5-wens@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
When gmac2phy was added, a whole bunch of pinmux options were added.
Turns out some of these don't exist on the actual product, based on
the publicly available TRM.
Remove them.
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200327030414.5903-4-wens@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
In some board device tree files, "rk805" was used for the RK805 PMIC's
node name. However the policy for device trees is that generic names
should be used.
Replace the "rk805" node name with the generic "pmic" name.
Fixes: 1e28037ec88e ("arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk805 node for rk3328-evb")
Fixes: 955bebde057e ("arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328-rock64 board")
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200327030414.5903-3-wens@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
On the Pinebook Pro the DC charger is detected via an open collector
transistor attached to a GPIO. This GPIO requires its pullup to be
enabled for the detection to work reliably.
Fixes: 5a65505a6988 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Add initial support for Pinebook Pro")
Signed-off-by: Tobias Schramm <t.schramm@manjaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200414163952.1093784-3-t.schramm@manjaro.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
On the Pinebook Pro the headphone jack is dual use. It can be used either
as a normal headphone jack or as a debug serial connection. This
functionality is controlled via a small hardware switch on the mainboard.
Unfortunately flipping this switch biases the headphone detection switch
inside the headphone jack at 3.3 V if in `debug UART` position but
to GND when in `headphone out` position.
This results in an inversion of the headphone detection logic depending
on the switch position.
Since the headphone jack can only be used for audio when in
`headphone out` position this commit changes the headphone detect GPIO
logic to be correct for that case rather than for the debug UART.
Fixes: 5a65505a6988 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Add initial support for Pinebook Pro")
Signed-off-by: Tobias Schramm <t.schramm@manjaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200414163952.1093784-2-t.schramm@manjaro.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
A proper binding for the Cortex-A35 PMU actually predates these DTs
being upstreamed, so use it.
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/6dfed94a99780c2314b38ff2b55a7efa0be4edbc.1587125314.git.robin.murphy@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
|
|
TCP stack is dumb in how it cooks its output packets.
Depending on MAX_HEADER value, we might chose a bad ending point
for the headers.
If we align the end of TCP headers to cache line boundary, we
make sure to always use the smallest number of cache lines,
which always help.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Florian Westphal says:
====================
mptcp: fix 'attempt to release socket in state...' splats
These two patches fix error handling corner-cases where
inet_sock_destruct gets called for a mptcp_sk that is not in TCP_CLOSE
state. This results in unwanted error printks from the network stack.
====================
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
We need to set sk_state to CLOSED, else we will get following:
IPv4: Attempt to release TCP socket in state 3 00000000b95f109e
IPv4: Attempt to release TCP socket in state 10 00000000b95f109e
First one is from inet_sock_destruct(), second one from
mptcp_sk_clone failure handling. Setting sk_state to CLOSED isn't
enough, we also need to orphan sk so it has DEAD flag set.
Otherwise, a very similar warning is printed from inet_sock_destruct().
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Following snippet (replicated from syzkaller reproducer) generates
warning: "IPv4: Attempt to release TCP socket in state 1".
int main(void) {
struct sockaddr_in sin1 = { .sin_family = 2, .sin_port = 0x4e20,
.sin_addr.s_addr = 0x010000e0, };
struct sockaddr_in sin2 = { .sin_family = 2,
.sin_addr.s_addr = 0x0100007f, };
struct sockaddr_in sin3 = { .sin_family = 2, .sin_port = 0x4e20,
.sin_addr.s_addr = 0x0100007f, };
int r0 = socket(0x2, 0x1, 0x106);
int r1 = socket(0x2, 0x1, 0x106);
bind(r1, (void *)&sin1, sizeof(sin1));
connect(r1, (void *)&sin2, sizeof(sin2));
listen(r1, 3);
return connect(r0, (void *)&sin3, 0x4d);
}
Reason is that the newly generated mptcp socket is closed via the ulp
release of the tcp listener socket when its accept backlog gets purged.
To fix this, delay setting the ESTABLISHED state until after userspace
calls accept and via mptcp specific destructor.
Fixes: 58b09919626bf ("mptcp: create msk early")
Closes: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/9
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Commit 9ecc2d86171a ("net/mlx4_en: add xdp forwarding and data write support")
brought another indirect call in fast path.
Use INDIRECT_CALL_2() helper to avoid the cost of the indirect call
when/if CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
This patch makes it impossible that cmpri or cmpre values are set to the
value 16 which is not possible, because these are 4 bit values. We
currently run in an overflow when assigning the value 16 to it.
According to the standard a value of 16 can be interpreted as a full
elided address which isn't possible to set as compression value. A reason
why this cannot be set is that the current ipv6 header destination address
should never show up inside the segments of the rpl header. In this case we
run in a overflow and the address will have no compression at all. Means
cmpri or compre is set to 0.
As we handle cmpri and cmpre sometimes as unsigned char or 4 bit value
inside the rpl header the current behaviour ends in an invalid header
format. This patch simple use the best compression method if we ever run
into the case that the destination address is showed up inside the rpl
segments. We avoid the overflow handling and the rpl header is still valid,
even when we have the destination address inside the rpl segments.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
In fine adjustement mode, which is the current default, the sub-second
increment register is the number of nanoseconds that will be added to
the clock when the accumulator overflows. At each clock cycle, the
value of the addend register is added to the accumulator.
Currently, we use 20ns = 1e09ns / 50MHz as this value whatever the
frequency of the ptp clock actually is.
The adjustment is then done on the addend register, only incrementing
every X clock cycles X being the ratio between 50MHz and ptp_clock_rate
(addend = 2^32 * 50MHz/ptp_clock_rate).
This causes the following issues :
- In case the frequency of the ptp clock is inferior or equal to 50MHz,
the addend value calculation will overflow and the default
addend value will be set to 0, causing the clock to not work at
all. (For instance, for ptp_clock_rate = 50MHz, addend = 2^32).
- The resolution of the timestamping clock is limited to 20ns while it
is not needed, thus limiting the accuracy of the timestamping to
20ns.
Fix this by setting sub-second increment to 2e09ns / ptp_clock_rate.
It will allow to reach the minimum possible frequency for
ptp_clk_ref, which is 5MHz for GMII 1000Mps Full-Duplex by setting the
sub-second-increment to a higher value. For instance, for 25MHz, it
gives ssinc = 80ns and default_addend = 2^31.
It will also allow to use a lower value for sub-second-increment, thus
improving the timestamping accuracy with frequencies higher than
100MHz, for instance, for 200MHz, ssinc = 10ns and default_addend =
2^31.
v1->v2:
- Remove modifications to the calculation of default addend, which broke
compatibility with clock frequencies for which 2000000000 / ptp_clk_freq
is not an integer.
- Modify description according to discussions.
Signed-off-by: Julien Beraud <julien.beraud@orolia.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
There are 2 registers to write to enable a ptp ref clock coming from the
fpga.
One that enables the usage of the clock from the fpga for emac0 and emac1
as a ptp ref clock, and the other to allow signals from the fpga to reach
emac0 and emac1.
Currently, if the dwmac-socfpga has phymode set to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII,
PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII, or PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII, both registers will
be written and the ptp ref clock will be set as coming from the fpga.
Separate the 2 register writes to only enable signals from the fpga to
reach emac0 or emac1 when ptp ref clock is not coming from the fpga.
Signed-off-by: Julien Beraud <julien.beraud@orolia.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
i2400mu_bus_bm_wait_for_ack() invokes usb_get_urb(), which increases the
refcount of the "notif_urb".
When i2400mu_bus_bm_wait_for_ack() returns, local variable "notif_urb"
becomes invalid, so the refcount should be decreased to keep refcount
balanced.
The issue happens in all paths of i2400mu_bus_bm_wait_for_ack(), which
forget to decrease the refcnt increased by usb_get_urb(), causing a
refcnt leak.
Fix this issue by calling usb_put_urb() before the
i2400mu_bus_bm_wait_for_ack() returns.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley:
"Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata"
* tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi:
scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write
scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN
scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC
scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID
scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer
scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings
scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging
Pull hwmon fixes from Guenter Roeck:
- Fix up chip IDs (isl68137)
- error handling for invalid temperatures and use true module name
(drivetemp)
- Fix static symbol warnings (k10temp)
- Use valid hwmon device name (jc42)
* tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging:
hwmon: (jc42) Fix name to have no illegal characters
hwmon: (k10temp) make some symbols static
hwmon: (drivetemp) Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
hwmon: (drivetemp) Use drivetemp's true module name in Kconfig section
hwmon: (pmbus/isl68137) Fix up chip IDs
|
|
tipc_rcv() invokes tipc_node_find() twice, which returns a reference of
the specified tipc_node object to "n" with increased refcnt.
When tipc_rcv() returns or a new object is assigned to "n", the original
local reference of "n" becomes invalid, so the refcount should be
decreased to keep refcount balanced.
The issue happens in some paths of tipc_rcv(), which forget to decrease
the refcnt increased by tipc_node_find() and will cause a refcnt leak.
Fix this issue by calling tipc_node_put() before the original object
pointed by "n" becomes invalid.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
tipc_crypto_rcv() invokes tipc_aead_get(), which returns a reference of
the tipc_aead object to "aead" with increased refcnt.
When tipc_crypto_rcv() returns, the original local reference of "aead"
becomes invalid, so the refcount should be decreased to keep refcount
balanced.
The issue happens in one error path of tipc_crypto_rcv(). When TIPC
message decryption status is EINPROGRESS or EBUSY, the function forgets
to decrease the refcnt increased by tipc_aead_get() and causes a refcnt
leak.
Fix this issue by calling tipc_aead_put() on the error path when TIPC
message decryption status is EINPROGRESS or EBUSY.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
nr_add_node() invokes nr_neigh_get_dev(), which returns a local
reference of the nr_neigh object to "nr_neigh" with increased refcnt.
When nr_add_node() returns, "nr_neigh" becomes invalid, so the refcount
should be decreased to keep refcount balanced.
The issue happens in one normal path of nr_add_node(), which forgets to
decrease the refcnt increased by nr_neigh_get_dev() and causes a refcnt
leak. It should decrease the refcnt before the function returns like
other normal paths do.
Fix this issue by calling nr_neigh_put() before the nr_add_node()
returns.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
The commit 1c76aa5fb48d ("ALSA: hda/realtek - Allow skipping
spec->init_amp detection") changed the way to assign spec->init_amp
field that specifies the way to initialize the amp. Along with the
change, the commit also replaced a few fixups that set spec->init_amp
in HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PROBE with HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PRE_PROBE. This was rather
aligning to the other fixups, and not supposed to change the actual
behavior.
However, this change turned out to cause a regression on FSC S7020,
which hit exactly the above. The reason was that there is still one
place that overrides spec->init_amp after HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PRE_PROBE
call, namely in alc_ssid_check().
This patch fixes the regression by adding the proper spec->init_amp
override check, i.e. verifying whether it's still ALC_INIT_UNDEFINED.
Fixes: 1c76aa5fb48d ("ALSA: hda/realtek - Allow skipping spec->init_amp detection")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207329
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200418190639.10082-1-tiwai@suse.de
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
|
