On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:53:17PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 02/10/2019 14:42, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:33:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> >>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The expression !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10 is always zero, so
> >>> the masking operation is incorrect. Fix this by adding the missing
> >>> parentheses to correctly bind the negate operator on the entire expression.
> >>>
> >>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
> >>> Fixes: c2b69474d63b ("net: stmmac: xgmac: Correct RAVSEL field interpretation")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> >>> index 965cbe3e6f51..2e814aa64a5c 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> >>> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static void dwxgmac2_get_hw_feature(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> >>> dma_cap->eee = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_EEESEL) >> 13;
> >>> dma_cap->atime_stamp = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_TSSEL) >> 12;
> >>> dma_cap->av = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_AVSEL) >> 11;
> >>> - dma_cap->av &= !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10;
> >>> + dma_cap->av &= !((hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10);
> >>
> >> There is no point to the shift at all.
> >
> > Sorry I meant to say it should be a bitwise NOT, right? I was just
> > looking at some other dma_cap stuff that did this same thing... I can't
> > find it now...
>
> In drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_tc.c it is being used like
> a boolean and not a bitmask'd value:
>
> if (!priv->dma_cap.av)
>
> so the original logic is to do boolean flag merging rather than bit-wise
> logic.
Oh yeah. Thanks. This code is hard to read.
It would be better to just write it like this:
if (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_AVSEL) && !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL)
dma_cap->av = true;
else
dma_cap->av = false;
All these very shifts are concise but they introduce bugs like this one
you have found.
regards,
dan carpenter
