On 2021/09/30 17:54, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 30.09.2021 5:35, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 2021/09/29 21:16, Guo Zhi wrote: >>> Pointers should be printed with %p or %px rather than cast to >>> 'unsigned long' and pinted with %lx >> >> s/pinted/printed >> >>> Change %lx to %p to print the secured pointer. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/ata/pata_atp867x.c | 10 +++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_atp867x.c b/drivers/ata/pata_atp867x.c >>> index 2bc5fc81efe3..c32b95f48e50 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_atp867x.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_atp867x.c >>> @@ -447,11 +447,11 @@ static int atp867x_ata_pci_sff_init_host(struct ata_host *host) >>> #ifdef ATP867X_DEBUG >>> atp867x_check_ports(ap, i); >>> #endif >>> - ata_port_desc(ap, "cmd 0x%lx ctl 0x%lx", >>> - (unsigned long)ioaddr->cmd_addr, >>> - (unsigned long)ioaddr->ctl_addr); >>> - ata_port_desc(ap, "bmdma 0x%lx", >>> - (unsigned long)ioaddr->bmdma_addr); >>> + ata_port_desc(ap, "cmd 0x%p ctl 0x%p", >>> + ioaddr->cmd_addr, >>> + ioaddr->ctl_addr); >>> + ata_port_desc(ap, "bmdma 0x%p", >>> + ioaddr->bmdma_addr); >>> >>> mask |= 1 << i; >>> } >>> >> >> Looks OK to me. But please fix the commit title to: >> >> "ata: atp867x: Fix pointer value print" >> >> "pointer leak" is too scary for what is only a simple printk problem. > > It's not a simple printk() problem, it's an kernel info leak that he's > fixing. But, as I said, this driver doesn't use MMIO, so "leaks" only I/O port > addresses. OK. I interpreted "leak" as memory leak... So the problem is print of pointer addresses that are unused. But if they are, shouldn't the pointers be NULL ? (I am absolutely not familiar with this driver, never looked at it). Guo, Can you check if the values printed are actually correct and correspond to resources used by the driver ? If they are not, simply remove the ata_port_desc() calls. > > MBR, Sergey > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
