qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Greg Kurz
Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu] ppc/vof: Fix Coverity issues
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:55:28 +0200

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 23:46:38 +1000
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> 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,
> 

You might want to mention the Coverity IDs fixed by this
patch in the changelog, e.g.

Fixes: CID xxxxxxx, yyyyyyy

> ---
>  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 ihandle)
>  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;
>      char tmp[VOF_MAX_PATH] = "";
>  
>      ret = phandle_to_path(fdt, phandle, tmp, sizeof(tmp));
> @@ -529,13 +529,13 @@ static uint32_t vof_package_to_path(const void *fdt, 
> uint32_t phandle,
>  
>      trace_vof_package_to_path(phandle, tmp, ret);
>  
> -    return ret;
> +    return (uint32_t) ret;
>  }
>  
>  static uint32_t vof_instance_to_path(void *fdt, Vof *vof, uint32_t ihandle,
>                                       uint32_t buf, uint32_t len)
>  {
> -    uint32_t ret = -1;
> +    int ret = -1;
>      uint32_t phandle = vof_instance_to_package(vof, ihandle);
>      char tmp[VOF_MAX_PATH] = "";
>  
> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ static uint32_t vof_instance_to_path(void *fdt, Vof *vof, 
> uint32_t ihandle,
>      }
>      trace_vof_instance_to_path(ihandle, phandle, tmp, ret);
>  
> -    return ret;
> +    return (uint32_t) ret;
>  }
>  
>  static uint32_t vof_write(Vof *vof, uint32_t ihandle, uint32_t buf,
> @@ -965,11 +965,15 @@ int vof_client_call(MachineState *ms, Vof *vof, void 
> *fdt,
>      }
>  
>      nret = be32_to_cpu(args_be.nret);
> +    if (nret > ARRAY_SIZE(args_be.args) - nargs) {
> +        return -EINVAL;
> +    }
>      ret = vof_client_handle(ms, fdt, vof, service, args, nargs, rets, nret);
>      if (!nret) {
>          return 0;
>      }
>  
> +    /* @nrets includes the value which this function returns */
>      args_be.args[nargs] = cpu_to_be32(ret);
>      for (i = 1; i < nret; ++i) {
>          args_be.args[nargs + i] = cpu_to_be32(rets[i - 1]);




reply via email to

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