[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Silence a static checker warning

[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

Smatch complains that we could dereference a "p" when it's an error
pointer.  It's seems unlikely, but it's easy enough to make the checker
happy.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..c9c46a138e0e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
+	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p)) {
 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
 			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
 		else

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:44:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains

Haha, smatch complains.

> that we could dereference a "p" when it's an error
> pointer.  It's seems unlikely, but it's easy enough to make the checker
> happy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 59edbe9d4ccb..c9c46a138e0e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
>  	 * paging has been enabled.
>  	 */
> -	if (p) {

A bit higher in that same function:

	if (IS_ERR(p))
		pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);

A proper fix would be:

	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p)) {
		pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
		return;
	}

and then drop the if (p) check below.

The same should be done in the above list_for_each_entry_safe() loop.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:

	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);

We can just return early instead.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.

We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
statement instead of allocating "p".

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..aab900ddea6a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -184,10 +184,11 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 				continue;
 
 			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
-			else
-				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
+				return;
+			}
+			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -197,10 +198,11 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
 		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
-		else
-			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
+			return;
+		}
+		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
 	/*

[PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:

	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);

We can just return early instead.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.

We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
statement instead of allocating "p".

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..aab900ddea6a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -184,10 +184,11 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 				continue;
 
 			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
-			else
-				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
+				return;
+			}
+			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -197,10 +198,11 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
 		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
-		else
-			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
+			return;
+		}
+		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
 	/*

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
> dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:
> 
> 	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> 
> We can just return early instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.
> 
> We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
> situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
> statement instead of allocating "p".

I think we want to something more like this (not exit the loop if the
allocation fails). But I need to look at the again on a clear head:a

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..0179f0fd8a79 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
@@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
-			else
-				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
+				continue;
+			}
+
+			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -196,11 +198,12 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
-		else
-			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
+			return;
+		}
+		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
 	/*

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
> dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:
> 
> 	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> 
> We can just return early instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.
> 
> We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
> situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
> statement instead of allocating "p".

I think we want to something more like this (not exit the loop if the
allocation fails). But I need to look at the again on a clear head:a

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..0179f0fd8a79 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
@@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
-			else
-				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
+				continue;
+			}
+
+			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -196,11 +198,12 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
-		else
-			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
+			return;
+		}
+		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
 	/*

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:47:14PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 59edbe9d4ccb..0179f0fd8a79 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
> @@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
> -			else
> -				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +
> +			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
>  		}
>  	}
>  

This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.

> @@ -196,11 +198,12 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  	 * newly found.
>  	 */
>  	if (!prev_found) {
> -		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -		if (IS_ERR(p))
> +		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
> -		else
> -			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
>  	}

The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
from the loop.  Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
inside the loop succeeds?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:47:14PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 59edbe9d4ccb..0179f0fd8a79 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
> @@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
> -			else
> -				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +
> +			list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
>  		}
>  	}
>  

This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.

> @@ -196,11 +198,12 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  	 * newly found.
>  	 */
>  	if (!prev_found) {
> -		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -		if (IS_ERR(p))
> +		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +		if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
> -		else
> -			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +		list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
>  	}

The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
from the loop.  Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
inside the loop succeeds?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.

You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
allocation fails.

> The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> from the loop.

Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

> Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> inside the loop succeeds?

This not why we set prev_found.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.

You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
allocation fails.

> The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> from the loop.

Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

> Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> inside the loop succeeds?

This not why we set prev_found.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:58:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.
> 
> You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
> allocation fails.
> 

I understand that.

> > The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> > from the loop.
> 
> Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
> certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
end of the function.

> 
> > Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> > inside the loop succeeds?
> 
> This not why we set prev_found.

Sure.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:58:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.
> 
> You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
> allocation fails.
> 

I understand that.

> > The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> > from the loop.
> 
> Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
> certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
end of the function.

> 
> > Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> > inside the loop succeeds?
> 
> This not why we set prev_found.

Sure.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:08:47AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
> end of the function.

Of course, that's why I'm still trying to find a solution. I'm just not
happy with what the ones we have now. I'll think about it more tomorrow,
on a clear head.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:08:47AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
> end of the function.

Of course, that's why I'm still trying to find a solution. I'm just not
happy with what the ones we have now. I'll think about it more tomorrow,
on a clear head.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

Ok,

your initial patch was on the right track but let's simplify the whole
flow. That should not trigger your checker warning anymore:

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
 	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p)
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 
 	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p->data) {
 		kfree(p);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 	}
 
 	return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (!p)
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
 			else
 				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (!p)
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
 		else
 			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
+	if (!p)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
-		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
-			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
-		else
-			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
-	}
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+	else
+		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
 }
 
 static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

Ok,

your initial patch was on the right track but let's simplify the whole
flow. That should not trigger your checker warning anymore:

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
 	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p)
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 
 	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p->data) {
 		kfree(p);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 	}
 
 	return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (!p)
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
 			else
 				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (!p)
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
 		else
 			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
+	if (!p)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
-		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
-			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
-		else
-			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
-	}
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+	else
+		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
 }
 
 static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

That patch looks good to me.  Could you just add a changelog and give
me a Reported-by: credit?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Dan Carpenter]

That patch looks good to me.  Could you just add a changelog and give
me a Reported-by: credit?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12:28PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> That patch looks good to me.  Could you just add a changelog and give
> me a Reported-by: credit?

Of course.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12:28PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> That patch looks good to me.  Could you just add a changelog and give
> me a Reported-by: credit?

Of course.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[Borislav Petkov]

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
patch for early loading on the application processors.

While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.

No functionality change.

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
 	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p)
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 
 	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p->data) {
 		kfree(p);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 	}
 
 	return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (!p)
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
 			else
 				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (!p)
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
 		else
 			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
+	if (!p)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
-		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
-			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
-		else
-			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
-	}
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+	else
+		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
 }
 
 static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)
-- 
2.13.0


-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[Borislav Petkov]

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
patch for early loading on the application processors.

While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.

No functionality change.

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
 	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p)
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 
 	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p->data) {
 		kfree(p);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 	}
 
 	return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (!p)
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
 			else
 				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (!p)
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
 		else
 			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
+	if (!p)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
-		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
-			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
-		else
-			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
-	}
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+	else
+		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
 }
 
 static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)
-- 
2.13.0


-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[walter harms]

Am 25.08.2017 12:04, schrieb Borislav Petkov:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> 
> Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
> patch for early loading on the application processors.
> 
> While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
> checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
> memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.
> 
> No functionality change.
> 
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
>  	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!p)
> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +		return NULL;
>  
>  	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!p->data) {
>  		kfree(p);
> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +		return NULL;
>  	}
>  
>  	return p;
> @@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (!p)
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
>  			else
>  				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
> @@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  	 * newly found.
>  	 */
>  	if (!prev_found) {
> -		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -		if (IS_ERR(p))
> +		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +		if (!p)
>  			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
>  		else
>  			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!p)
> +		return;
> +

just a bit nitpicking,
 i would expect something like that:

     p = memdup_patch(data, size);
     if (!p) {
        pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
	return;
     }
     list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);

... because this is a normal pattern for OOF conditions and
    everyone will ask "Why continue when there is no memory"

just my 2 cents
re,
 wh


>  	/*
>  	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
>  	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
>  	 * paging has been enabled.
>  	 */
> -	if (p) {
> -		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
> -			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> -		else
> -			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
> -	}
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
> +		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> +	else
> +		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
>  }
>  
>  static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[walter harms]

Am 25.08.2017 12:04, schrieb Borislav Petkov:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> 
> Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
> patch for early loading on the application processors.
> 
> While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
> checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
> memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.
> 
> No functionality change.
> 
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
>  	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!p)
> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +		return NULL;
>  
>  	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!p->data) {
>  		kfree(p);
> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +		return NULL;
>  	}
>  
>  	return p;
> @@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (!p)
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
>  			else
>  				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
> @@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  	 * newly found.
>  	 */
>  	if (!prev_found) {
> -		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -		if (IS_ERR(p))
> +		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +		if (!p)
>  			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
>  		else
>  			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!p)
> +		return;
> +

just a bit nitpicking,
 i would expect something like that:

     p = memdup_patch(data, size);
     if (!p) {
        pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
	return;
     }
     list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);

... because this is a normal pattern for OOF conditions and
    everyone will ask "Why continue when there is no memory"

just my 2 cents
re,
 wh


>  	/*
>  	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
>  	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
>  	 * paging has been enabled.
>  	 */
> -	if (p) {
> -		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
> -			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> -		else
> -			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
> -	}
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
> +		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> +	else
> +		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
>  }
>  
>  static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:40:54PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> just a bit nitpicking,
>  i would expect something like that:

Apply the patch and look at the whole function. Then you'll see why.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:40:54PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> just a bit nitpicking,
>  i would expect something like that:

Apply the patch and look at the whole function. Then you'll see why.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

[tip-bot for Borislav Petkov]

Commit-ID:  aa78c1ccfab6018289bc2bfd0092d516d0a49ec5
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/aa78c1ccfab6018289bc2bfd0092d516d0a49ec5
Author:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
AuthorDate: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:04:56 +0200
Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitDate: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:59:28 +0200

x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow

Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
patch for early loading on the application processors.

While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.

No functionality change.

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170825100456.n236w3jebteokfd6@pd.tnic

---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9..8f7a9bb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 {
 	struct ucode_patch *p;
 
 	p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p)
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 
 	p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!p->data) {
 		kfree(p);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return NULL;
 	}
 
 	return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
 				continue;
 
-			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-			if (IS_ERR(p))
+			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+			if (!p)
 				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
 			else
 				list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
 	 * newly found.
 	 */
 	if (!prev_found) {
-		p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
-		if (IS_ERR(p))
+		p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+		if (!p)
 			pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
 		else
 			list_add_tail(&p->plist, &microcode_cache);
 	}
 
+	if (!p)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
 	 * address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
 	 * paging has been enabled.
 	 */
-	if (p) {
-		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
-			intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
-		else
-			intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
-	}
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+		intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+	else
+		intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
 }
 
 static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 22:47 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
> > dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:
> > 
> > 	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> > 
> > We can just return early instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.
> > 
> > We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
> > situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
> > statement instead of allocating "p".
> 
> I think we want to something more like this (not exit the loop if the
> allocation fails). But I need to look at the again on a clear head:a
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
[]
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
> @@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);

The pr_err could also be deleted as memdup_patch also
just does normal allocations without __GFP_NOWARN so
dump_stack() still would occur.

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 22:47 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The code here prints an error if "p" is an error pointer but it still
> > dereferences it at the end of the function when it does:
> > 
> > 	intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
> > 
> > We can just return early instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > v2: return early instead checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL() at the end.
> > 
> > We have to keep the final check whether "p" is NULL to handle the
> > situation were we set "prev_found = true;" but then hit the continue
> > statement instead of allocating "p".
> 
> I think we want to something more like this (not exit the loop if the
> allocation fails). But I need to look at the again on a clear head:a
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
[]
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
> +static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  {
>  	struct ucode_patch *p;
>  
> @@ -183,11 +183,13 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
>  			if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
> -			if (IS_ERR(p))
> +			p = memdup_patch(data, size);
> +			if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  				pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);

The pr_err could also be deleted as memdup_patch also
just does normal allocations without __GFP_NOWARN so
dump_stack() still would occur.