[PATCH linux-next] firmware/psci: fix application of sizeof to pointer

[PATCH linux-next] firmware/psci: fix application of sizeof to pointer

[jing yangyang]

sizeof when applied to a pointer typed expression gives the size of
the pointer.

./drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c:158:41-47: ERROR application of sizeof to pointer

This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.

Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <jing.yangyang@zte.com.cn>
---
 drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
index 9a369a2..116eb46 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int alloc_init_cpu_groups(cpumask_var_t **pcpu_groups)
 	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp, GFP_KERNEL))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(cpu_groups),
+	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(*cpu_groups),
 			     GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!cpu_groups) {
 		free_cpumask_var(tmp);
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH linux-next] firmware/psci: fix application of sizeof to pointer

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:30:16PM -0700, jing yangyang wrote:
> sizeof when applied to a pointer typed expression gives the size of
> the pointer.
> 
> ./drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c:158:41-47: ERROR application of sizeof to pointer
> 
> This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <jing.yangyang@zte.com.cn>

From looking at the git history, we should add:

  Fixes: 7401056de5f8d4ea ("drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests)"

With that:

  Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

Lorenzo, how do we normally direct these patches?

Thanks,
Mark.


> ---
>  drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> index 9a369a2..116eb46 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int alloc_init_cpu_groups(cpumask_var_t **pcpu_groups)
>  	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp, GFP_KERNEL))
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(cpu_groups),
> +	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(*cpu_groups),
>  			     GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!cpu_groups) {
>  		free_cpumask_var(tmp);
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH linux-next] firmware/psci: fix application of sizeof to pointer

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:58:24AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:30:16PM -0700, jing yangyang wrote:
> > sizeof when applied to a pointer typed expression gives the size of
> > the pointer.
> > 
> > ./drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c:158:41-47: ERROR application of sizeof to pointer
> > 
> > This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> > Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <jing.yangyang@zte.com.cn>
> 
> >From looking at the git history, we should add:
> 
>   Fixes: 7401056de5f8d4ea ("drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests)"
> 
> With that:
> 
>   Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> 
> Lorenzo, how do we normally direct these patches?

It seems that these patches are consistently being ignored[1][2][3]. So,
I'll take this in my -next tree[4] before it gets lost again.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200917081353.2083241-1-liushixin2@huawei.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1606179525-63938-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@hisilicon.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211012024229.180058-1-davidcomponentone@gmail.com/
[4] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/kspp-misc-fixes

> 
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> > index 9a369a2..116eb46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c
> > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int alloc_init_cpu_groups(cpumask_var_t **pcpu_groups)
> >  	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp, GFP_KERNEL))
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > -	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(cpu_groups),
> > +	cpu_groups = kcalloc(nb_available_cpus, sizeof(*cpu_groups),
> >  			     GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!cpu_groups) {
> >  		free_cpumask_var(tmp);
> > -- 
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH linux-next] firmware/psci: fix application of sizeof to pointer

[Sudeep Holla]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 01:10:03PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:58:24AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:30:16PM -0700, jing yangyang wrote:
> > > sizeof when applied to a pointer typed expression gives the size of
> > > the pointer.
> > > 
> > > ./drivers/firmware/psci/psci_checker.c:158:41-47: ERROR application of sizeof to pointer
> > > 
> > > This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> > > Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <jing.yangyang@zte.com.cn>
> > 
> > >From looking at the git history, we should add:
> > 
> >   Fixes: 7401056de5f8d4ea ("drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests)"
> > 
> > With that:
> > 
> >   Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > 
> > Lorenzo, how do we normally direct these patches?
> 
> It seems that these patches are consistently being ignored[1][2][3]. So,

Sorry for that. Sometime it does happen. Anyways thanks for reminding about
it.

> I'll take this in my -next tree[4] before it gets lost again.

Mark has already acked it, so you can take it via your tree if you are OK.

We generally ask the author to post to soc@kernel.org for one of patches
like this when we don't have any plans to send PR to SoC team so that they
can apply the patch directly.

So it should be fine if you prefer to pick up and send to SoC team or we
can resend the patch to them and ask to apply. Let us know.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep