| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
While 64-bit Arm reference platforms have SP810 for clocks for SP804
timers, they are not needed since the arch timers are used instead.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_VERSATILE doesn't really do anything other than hiding
Arm Ltd reference platform clock drivers. It is both selected by the
platforms that need it and has a 'depends on' for those platforms. Let's
drop the selects and convert CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_VERSATILE into a
menuconfig entry. With this make CONFIG_ICST visible.
Move the 'select REGMAP_MMIO' to the drivers that require it (SP810 did
not).
This also has the side effect of enabling CONFIG_ICST for COMPILE_TEST
as it was not visible before.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
If amba bus devices defer when adding, the amba bus code simply retries
adding the devices every 5 seconds. This doesn't work well as it
completely unsynchronized with starting the init process which can
happen in less than 5 secs. Add a retry during late_initcall. If the
amba devices are added, then deferred probe takes over. If the
dependencies have not probed at this point, then there's no improvement
over previous behavior. To completely solve this, we'd need to retry
after every successful probe as deferred probe does.
The list_empty() check now happens outside the mutex, but the mutex
wasn't necessary in the first place.
This needed to use deferred probe instead of fragile initcall ordering
on 32-bit VExpress systems where the apb_pclk has a number of probe
dependencies (vexpress-sysregs, vexpress-config).
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
The VExpress power-off/reset driver is not needed on 64-bit platforms as
PSCI power-off and reset can be used instead. Stop selecting it so it
can be disabled and not always built-in.
CONFIG_VEXPRESS_CONFIG can also be dropped as it was a dependency for
CONFIG_POWER_RESET_VEXPRESS.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
vexpress_flags_set() is only used by the platform SMP related code and
has nothing to do with the vexpress-sysreg MFD driver other than both
access the same h/w block. It's also only needed for 32-bit systems and
must be built-in for them. Let's move vexpress_flags_set() closer to
where it is being used. This will allow for vexpress-sysreg to be built
as a module.
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>
Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
|
|
Tremont CPUs support IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES bits to indicate whether
specific SKUs have support for split lock detection.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-4-tony.luck@intel.com
|
|
The Intel Software Developers' Manual erroneously listed bit 5 of the
IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES register as an architectural feature. It is not.
Features enumerated by IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES are model specific and
implementation details may vary in different cpu models. Thus it is only
safe to trust features after checking the CPU model.
Icelake client and server models are known to implement the split lock
detect feature even though they don't enumerate IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES
[ tglx: Use switch() for readability and massage comments ]
Fixes: 6650cdd9a8cc ("x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel")
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-3-tony.luck@intel.com
|
|
Resctrl assumes that all CPUs are online when the filesystem is mounted,
and that CPUs remember their CDP-enabled state over CPU hotplug.
This goes wrong when resctrl's CDP-enabled state changes while all the
CPUs in a domain are offline.
When a domain comes online, enable (or disable!) CDP to match resctrl's
current setting.
Fixes: 5ff193fbde20 ("x86/intel_rdt: Add basic resctrl filesystem support")
Suggested-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200221162105.154163-1-james.morse@arm.com
|
|
If you run 'make dtbs_check' without installing the libyaml package,
the error message "dtc needs libyaml ..." is shown.
This should be checked also for 'make dt_binding_check' because dtc
needs to validate *.example.dts extracted from *.yaml files.
It is missing since commit 4f0e3a57d6eb ("kbuild: Add support for DT
binding schema checks"), but this fix-up is applicable only after commit
e10c4321dc1e ("kbuild: allow to run dt_binding_check and dtbs_check
in a single command").
I gave the Fixes tag to the latter in case somebody is interested in
back-porting this.
Fixes: e10c4321dc1e ("kbuild: allow to run dt_binding_check and dtbs_check in a single command")
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
The default resource group ("rdtgroup_default") is associated with the
root of the resctrl filesystem and should never be removed. New resource
groups can be created as subdirectories of the resctrl filesystem and
they can be removed from user space.
There exists a safeguard in the directory removal code
(rdtgroup_rmdir()) that ensures that only subdirectories can be removed
by testing that the directory to be removed has to be a child of the
root directory.
A possible deadlock was recently fixed with
334b0f4e9b1b ("x86/resctrl: Fix a deadlock due to inaccurate reference").
This fix involved associating the private data of the "mon_groups"
and "mon_data" directories to the resource group to which they belong
instead of NULL as before. A consequence of this change was that
the original safeguard code preventing removal of "mon_groups" and
"mon_data" found in the root directory failed resulting in attempts to
remove the default resource group that ends in a BUG:
kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:3969!
invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
Call Trace:
rdtgroup_rmdir+0x16b/0x2c0
kernfs_iop_rmdir+0x5c/0x90
vfs_rmdir+0x7a/0x160
do_rmdir+0x17d/0x1e0
do_syscall_64+0x55/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
Fix this by improving the directory removal safeguard to ensure that
subdirectories of the resctrl root directory can only be removed if they
are a child of the resctrl filesystem's root _and_ not associated with
the default resource group.
Fixes: 334b0f4e9b1b ("x86/resctrl: Fix a deadlock due to inaccurate reference")
Reported-by: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Tested-by: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/884cbe1773496b5dbec1b6bd11bb50cffa83603d.1584461853.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com
|
|
Drop needless newlines from tracepoint format strings, they only add
empty lines to perf tracing output.
Signed-off-by: Tommi Rantala <tommi.t.rantala@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
|
|
Use tracepoint_string() for string literals that are used in the
wbt_step tracepoint, so that userspace tools can display the string
content.
Signed-off-by: Tommi Rantala <tommi.t.rantala@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
|
|
CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE was removed with
commit f382fb0bcef4 ("block: remove legacy IO schedulers")
and setting of the scheduler was removed with
commit a5fd8ddce2af ("s390/dasd: remove setting of scheduler from driver").
So get rid of the select.
Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
|
|
kmemleak reports several memory leaks from devicetree unittest.
This is the fix for problem 5 of 5.
When overlay 'overlay_bad_add_dup_prop' is applied, the apply code
properly detects that a memory leak will occur if the overlay is removed
since the duplicate property is located in a base devicetree node and
reports via printk():
OF: overlay: WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: /testcase-data-2/substation@100/motor-1/rpm_avail
OF: overlay: WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: /testcase-data-2/substation@100/motor-1/rpm_avail
The overlay is removed when the apply code detects multiple changesets
modifying the same property. This is reported via printk():
OF: overlay: ERROR: multiple fragments add, update, and/or delete property /testcase-data-2/substation@100/motor-1/rpm_avail
As a result of this error, the overlay is removed resulting in the
expected memory leak.
Add another device node level to the overlay so that the duplicate
property is located in a node added by the overlay, thus no memory
leak will occur when the overlay is removed.
Thus users of kmemleak will not have to debug this leak in the future.
Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property")
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
kmemleak reports several memory leaks from devicetree unittest.
This is the fix for problem 4 of 5.
target_path was not freed in the non-error path.
Fixes: e0a58f3e08d4 ("of: overlay: remove a dependency on device node full_name")
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
kmemleak reports several memory leaks from devicetree unittest.
This is the fix for problem 3 of 5.
of_unittest_overlay_high_level() failed to kfree the newly created
property when the property named 'name' is skipped.
Fixes: 39a751a4cb7e ("of: change overlay apply input data from unflattened to FDT")
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
kmemleak reports several memory leaks from devicetree unittest.
This is the fix for problem 2 of 5.
of_unittest_platform_populate() left an elevated reference count for
grandchild nodes (which are platform devices). Fix the platform
device reference counts so that the memory will be freed.
Fixes: fb2caa50fbac ("of/selftest: add testcase for nodes with same name and address")
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
kmemleak reports several memory leaks from devicetree unittest.
This is the fix for problem 1 of 5.
of_unittest_changeset() reaches deeply into the dynamic devicetree
functions. Several nodes were left with an elevated reference
count and thus were not properly cleaned up. Fix the reference
counts so that the memory will be freed.
Fixes: 201c910bd689 ("of: Transactional DT support.")
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
|
There's a conversion from a plain text binding file into 4 yaml ones.
The old file got removed, causing this new warning:
Warning: MAINTAINERS references a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm-boards
Address it by replacing the old reference by the new ones
Fixes: 4b900070d50d ("dt-bindings: arm: Add Versatile YAML schema")
Fixes: 2d483550b6d2 ("dt-bindings: arm: Drop the non-YAML bindings")
Fixes: 7db625b9fa75 ("dt-bindings: arm: Add RealView YAML schema")
Fixes: 4fb00d9066c1 ("dt-bindings: arm: Add Versatile Express and Juno YAML schema")
Fixes: 33fbfb3eaf4e ("dt-bindings: arm: Add Integrator YAML schema")
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
|
Rob Herring
Linus Torvalds
Brian Geffon
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Sascha Hauer
Tony Luck
James Morse
Masahiro Yamada
Reinette Chatre
Tommi Rantala
Stefan Haberland
Frank Rowand
Mauro Carvalho Chehab