On Mon, 02 May, at 09:25:00PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Matt Fleming,
>
> The patch f0133f3c5b8b: "efi: Add 'capsule' update support" from Apr
> 25, 2016, leads to the following static checker warning:
>
> drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c:109 efi_capsule_supported()
> warn: did you mean to pass the address of 'capsule'
>
> drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c
> 91 int efi_capsule_supported(efi_guid_t guid, u32 flags, size_t size, int *reset)
> 92 {
> 93 efi_capsule_header_t *capsule;
> 94 efi_status_t status;
> 95 u64 max_size;
> 96 int rv = 0;
> 97
> 98 if (flags & ~EFI_CAPSULE_SUPPORTED_FLAG_MASK)
> 99 return -EINVAL;
> 100
> 101 capsule = kmalloc(sizeof(*capsule), GFP_KERNEL);
> 102 if (!capsule)
> 103 return -ENOMEM;
> 104
> 105 capsule->headersize = capsule->imagesize = sizeof(*capsule);
> 106 memcpy(&capsule->guid, &guid, sizeof(efi_guid_t));
> 107 capsule->flags = flags;
> 108
> 109 status = efi.query_capsule_caps(&capsule, 1, &max_size, reset);
> ^^^^^^^^
> If we modify capsule inside this function call then at the end of the
> function we aren't freeing the original pointer that we allocated.
>
> 110 if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
> 111 rv = efi_status_to_err(status);
> 112 goto out;
> 113 }
> 114
> 115 if (size > max_size)
> 116 rv = -ENOSPC;
> 117 out:
> 118 kfree(capsule);
> 119 return rv;
> 120 }
We should be fine here, the firmware should not modify the argument
that we pass since we're simply querying whether or not the capsule is
supported.
Is there a cleanup that you'd suggest making to silence the static
checker warning?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
