arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 5 +---- drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 2 +- include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
commit bd500361a937 ("ACPI: PPTT: Update acpi_find_last_cache_level()
to acpi_get_cache_info()")
updates the function acpi_get_cache_info().
If CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, acpi_get_cache_info() doesn't
update its *levels and *split_levels parameters and returns 0.
This can lead to a faulty behaviour.
Make acpi_get_cache_info() return an error code if CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT
is not defined. Initialize levels and split_levels before passing
their address to acpi_get_cache_info().
Also, in init_cache_level():
- commit e75d18cecbb3 ("arm64: cacheinfo: Fix incorrect
assignment of signed error value to unsigned fw_level")
checks the fw_level value in init_cache_level() in case
the value is negative. Remove this check as the error code
is not returned through fw_level anymore.
- if no PPTT is present or CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined,
it is still possible to use the cache information from clidr_el1.
Instead of aborting if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error
code, just continue.
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 5 +----
drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 2 +-
include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
index 36c3b07cdf2d..3ba70985e3a2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
@@ -64,12 +64,9 @@ int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
} else {
ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_level, NULL);
if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ fw_level = 0;
}
- if (fw_level < 0)
- return fw_level;
-
if (level < fw_level) {
/*
* some external caches not specified in CLIDR_EL1
diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index b57fbd0d7114..f184ef7dc1d2 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ int allocate_cache_info(int cpu)
int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci;
- unsigned int levels, split_levels;
+ unsigned int levels = 0, split_levels = 0;
int ret;
if (acpi_disabled) {
diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
index dfef57077cd0..908e19d17f49 100644
--- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
+++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static inline
int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels)
{
- return 0;
+ return -ENOENT;
}
#else
int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
--
2.25.1
Hey! On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:34:46PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote: > commit bd500361a937 ("ACPI: PPTT: Update acpi_find_last_cache_level() > to acpi_get_cache_info()") > updates the function acpi_get_cache_info(). > > If CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, acpi_get_cache_info() doesn't > update its *levels and *split_levels parameters and returns 0. > This can lead to a faulty behaviour. > > Make acpi_get_cache_info() return an error code if CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT > is not defined. Initialize levels and split_levels before passing > their address to acpi_get_cache_info(). > > Also, in init_cache_level(): Hmm... > - commit e75d18cecbb3 ("arm64: cacheinfo: Fix incorrect > assignment of signed error value to unsigned fw_level") > checks the fw_level value in init_cache_level() in case > the value is negative. Remove this check as the error code > is not returned through fw_level anymore. > - if no PPTT is present or CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, > it is still possible to use the cache information from clidr_el1. > Instead of aborting if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error > code, just continue. To be honest, these feel like entirely separate things that should be in different patches. You've got: - Dan's smatch fixes - a redundant check being removed - a behaviour change for if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> How about Link: to the LKP/Dan's report? Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y86iruJPuwNN7rZw@kili/ I did a quick check but didn't don't see the LKP report... Also a Fixes: tag too, no? Thanks, Conor.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:31:06PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey! > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:34:46PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote: > > commit bd500361a937 ("ACPI: PPTT: Update acpi_find_last_cache_level() > > to acpi_get_cache_info()") > > updates the function acpi_get_cache_info(). > > > > If CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, acpi_get_cache_info() doesn't > > update its *levels and *split_levels parameters and returns 0. > > This can lead to a faulty behaviour. > > > > Make acpi_get_cache_info() return an error code if CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT > > is not defined. Initialize levels and split_levels before passing > > their address to acpi_get_cache_info(). > > > > Also, in init_cache_level(): > > Hmm... > > > - commit e75d18cecbb3 ("arm64: cacheinfo: Fix incorrect > > assignment of signed error value to unsigned fw_level") > > checks the fw_level value in init_cache_level() in case > > the value is negative. Remove this check as the error code > > is not returned through fw_level anymore. > > - if no PPTT is present or CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, > > it is still possible to use the cache information from clidr_el1. > > Instead of aborting if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error > > code, just continue. > > To be honest, these feel like entirely separate things that should be > in different patches. You've got: > - Dan's smatch fixes > - a redundant check being removed > - a behaviour change for if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error > I am not too fussy about it, but for sure it would be cleaner for sure. > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> > > How about Link: to the LKP/Dan's report? > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y86iruJPuwNN7rZw@kili/ > > I did a quick check but didn't don't see the LKP report... > Yes, LKP dropped all the cc when reported, even I saw after merging the changes. I think this is the one: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301052307.JYt1GWaJ-lkp@intel.com/ > Also a Fixes: tag too, no? > +1, if you split make sure you tag fixes to the right one(mainly one that changes return from acpi_get_cache_info()) > Thanks, > Conor. -- Regards, Sudeep
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.