On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Alexandre Courbot,
>
> The patch 5429f82f3415: "drm/nouveau/secboot: add
> gp102/gp104/gp106/gp107 support" from Jan 26, 2017, leads to the
> following static checker warning:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/secboot/gp102.c:63 gp102_run_secure_scrub()
> warn: passing zero to 'PTR_ERR'
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/secboot/gp102.c
> 46 static int
> 47 gp102_run_secure_scrub(struct nvkm_secboot *sb)
> 48 {
> 49 struct nvkm_subdev *subdev = &sb->subdev;
> 50 struct nvkm_device *device = subdev->device;
> 51 struct nvkm_engine *engine;
> 52 struct nvkm_falcon *falcon;
> 53 void *scrub_image;
> 54 struct fw_bin_header *hsbin_hdr;
> 55 struct hsf_fw_header *fw_hdr;
> 56 struct hsf_load_header *lhdr;
> 57 void *scrub_data;
> 58 int ret;
> 59
> 60 nvkm_debug(subdev, "running VPR scrubber binary on NVDEC...\n");
> 61
> 62 if (!(engine = nvkm_engine_ref(&device->nvdec->engine)))
> 63 return PTR_ERR(engine);
>
> This code doesn't make sense. nvkm_engine_ref() isn't going to return
> NULL because we're not passing a NULL to it. I guess we should be
> checking for ERR_PTR(). But really why does nvkm_engine_ref() ever
> return NULL? It feels like if we pass it a NULL pointer it should
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) on that path instead.
Indeed, not sure what I was smoking. The proper fix is to check for
ERR_PTR, will send a patch to fix it shortly. Thanks for the report!
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
