When enabling the trigger and unmasking the end-of-sequence (EOS) interrupt
the EOS interrupt should be cleared from the status register. Otherwise it
is possible that it was still set from a previous capture. If that is the
case the interrupt would fire immediately even though no conversion has
been done yet and stale data is being read from the device.
The old code only clears the interrupt if the interrupt was previously
unmasked. Which does not make much sense since the interrupt is always
masked at this point and in addition masking the interrupt does not clear
the interrupt from the status register. So the clearing needs to be done
unconditionally.
Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Fixes: bdc8cda1d0 ("iio:adc: Add Xilinx XADC driver")
Cc: <Stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
The check for shutting down the second ADC is inverted. This causes it to
be powered down when it should be enabled. As a result channels that are
supposed to be handled by the second ADC return invalid conversion results.
Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Fixes: bdc8cda1d0 ("iio:adc: Add Xilinx XADC driver")
Cc: <Stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Currently there is an off-by-one check on the number of channels that
will cause an arry overrun in array st->output_mode when calling the
function d5770r_store_output_range. Fix this by using >= rather than >
to check for maximum number of channels.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Out-of-bounds access")
Fixes: cbbb819837 ("iio: dac: ad5770r: Add AD5770R support")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
flush hw FIFO before device reset in order to avoid possible races
on interrupt line 1. If the first interrupt line is asserted during
hw reset the device will work in I3C-only mode (if it is supported)
Fixes: 801a6e0af0 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support to LSM6DSO")
Fixes: 43901008fd ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support to LSM6DSR")
Reported-by: Mario Tesi <mario.tesi@st.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Vitor Soares <vitor.soares@synopsys.com>
Tested-by: Vitor Soares <vitor.soares@synopsys.com>
Cc: <Stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
This patch fixes the call to iio_str_to_fixpoint when using 'dB' sufix.
Before this the scale_db was not used when parsing the string written to
the attribute and it failed with invalid value.
Fixes: b852822474 ("iio: core: Handle 'dB' suffix in core")
Signed-off-by: Mircea Caprioru <mircea.caprioru@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Fix id relative path that shouldn't contain 'bindings', as pointed out
when submitting st,stm32-dac bindings conversion to json-schema [1].
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1257568/
Fixes: a8cf1723c4 ("dt-bindings: iio: adc: stm32-adc: convert bindings to json-schema")
Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
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: 58b0991962 ("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 9ecc2d8617 ("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>
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.
Signed-off-by: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEABMIAEQWIQTnYEDbdso9F2cI+arnQslM7pishQUCXptd+CYcamFtZXMuYm90
dG9tbGV5QGhhbnNlbnBhcnRuZXJzaGlwLmNvbQAKCRDnQslM7pishbngAP46suq5
KFaRycXl1lmznlPmM7gyFfszxDV3hp9SusFrzgEAxV4S6vdgEsF2pd5F6EYZoV0i
eCPKR6qDY4SaiUcGFRA=
=B9UG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'scsi-fixes' of 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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
pmbus/isl68137:
Fix up chip IDs
drivetemp:
Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
Use true module name
k10temp:
Fix static symbol warnings
jc42:
Use valid hwmon device name
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=gfMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of 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>
