On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 07:11:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ret = __parse_crashkernel(cmdline, system_ram, crash_size,
> > crash_base, NULL);
> >
> > and that suffix==NULL gets passed through to the strncmp()?
>
> Yeah, this looks like a false positive report. I reproduced this, below
> change can mute the warning. However, the null pointer checking has been
> done in __parse_crashkernel() when calls parse_crashkernel_suffix().
How the heck did I miss that.
> Add below check anyway to satisfy the W=1 compiling?
I dunno, gcc is so wrong here I'm inclined to leave it as-is, because
surely this will get fixed in later gcc's.
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ static int __init parse_crashkernel_suffix(char *cmdline,
> {
> char *cur = cmdline;
>
> + if(!suffix)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> *crash_size = memparse(cmdline, &cur);
> if (cmdline == cur) {
> pr_warn("crashkernel: memory value expected\n");
If we were to do this, let's have a comment explaining why we're doing
it - otherwise helpful people will try to remove it again.
