On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:22:18AM +0000, Ran Wang wrote:
Hi Dan
On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 2:20 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
<snip>
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter(a)oracle.com>
>
> New smatch warnings:
> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c:1055 fsl_ep_fifo_status() error: we
> previously assumed '_ep->desc' could be null (see line 1055)
>
<snip>
>
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1047 static int fsl_ep_fifo_status(struct usb_ep *_ep)
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1048 {
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1049 struct fsl_ep *ep;
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1050 struct fsl_udc *udc;
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1051 int size = 0;
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1052 u32 bitmask;
> 6414e94c203d92 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Li Yang
> 2011-11-23 1053 struct ep_queue_head *qh;
> 2ea6698d7b9266 drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c Anatolij Gustschin
> 2011-04-18 1054
> 75eaa498c99eeb drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c Nikhil Badola
> 2019-10-21 @1055 if (!_ep || _ep->desc ||
!(_ep->desc->bEndpointAddress&0xF))
> ^^^^^^^^^ Reversed NULL test. This will
always return -ENODEV. (Or possibly crash. But I suspect it always returns -ENODEV
instead of crashing).
So the kernel test reports warning in case of '_ep->desc is null', right?
My understanding is that this judgement would return -ENODEV when
executing '... || _ep-desc ||..' and never execute
'_ep->desc->bEndpointAddress' part,
so crash would not happen, am I right?
Yeah. I can't imagine how _ep->desc is NULL. It gets set to non-NULL
in fsl_ep_enable() and then set to NULL in fsl_ep_disable().
regards,
dan carpenter