[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH qemu] ppc/vof: Fix Coverity issues

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu] ppc/vof: Fix Coverity issues
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:25:53 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0

On 7/19/21 13:57, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:46:38PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
This fixes NEGATIVE_RETURNS, OVERRUN issues reported by the Coverity.

This adds a comment about the return parameters number in the VOF hcall.
The reason for such counting is to keep the numbers look the same in
vof_client_handle() and the Linux (an OF client).

Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>

Will this make COverity happy? What is the canonical way of fixing these
uint32_t vs. int? Thanks,

It might make Coverity happy, but I think it's an ugly approach.

  hw/ppc/vof.c | 12 ++++++++----
  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/ppc/vof.c b/hw/ppc/vof.c
index 81f65962156c..872f671babbe 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/vof.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/vof.c
@@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ static uint32_t vof_instance_to_package(Vof *vof, uint32_t 
  static uint32_t vof_package_to_path(const void *fdt, uint32_t phandle,
                                      uint32_t buf, uint32_t len)
-    uint32_t ret = -1;
+    int ret = -1;

I don't think you want to try to use the same variable for the value
from phandle_to_path() and the return value from this function -
they're different types, with different encodings.  The inner value
should remain int (that's the libfdt convention).

The outer one is explicltly unsigned.  You're not really looking for
negative error values, but specifically for -1U == ~0U as the single
error value.  So re-introduce your PROM_ERROR valued, defined as ~0U,
so that it's clearly unsigned, and use that and unsigned logic for all
manipulation of the outer value.

Fair enough. One question. Linux defines it as

#define PROM_ERROR (-1u)

Do you still vote for "~0U"?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]