Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] remoteproc: add helper for optional ELF resource tables

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The macro `rproc_elf_load_rsc_table_optional` hides `return` statements inside a GNU C statement expression, forcing the caller to return immediately and creating dead code.
--

commit 97ca173b9ba2ed2c419cbe1a3f62d02db6f033c0
Author: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@amd.com>

remoteproc: add helper for optional ELF resource tables

This commit introduces a helper macro around rproc_elf_load_rsc_table. It is
designed for drivers that treat a missing ELF resource table as optional while
allowing the caller to maintain local logging control.

> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> @@ -149,6 +149,17 @@ static inline int rproc_mem_entry_iounmap(struct rproc *rproc,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +#define rproc_elf_load_rsc_table_optional(rproc, fw, dev_func, fmt, ...)	\
> +	({									\
> +		int ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw);			\
> +		if (ret == -EINVAL) {						\
> +			dev_func(&rproc->dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);		\
> +			return 0;						\

[Severity: Medium]
Does this macro hide control flow in a way that forces the caller to return
unexpectedly?

Using explicit return statements inside a GNU C statement expression does not
yield a value to the expression itself. Instead, it forces the function
invoking the macro to return immediately.

If callers use this macro as though it evaluates to a return code, any trailing
statements in the caller will become unreachable dead code. Additionally, if a
calling function acquires a lock or allocates memory before using this macro,
the hidden return would skip the cleanup path and cause a resource leak.

Would it be safer to replace this macro with a standard inline function, or
change the statement expression to evaluate to the integer value rather than
forcing an explicit return?

> +		} else {							\
> +			return ret;						\
> +		}								\
> +	})

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260529021637.2077602-1-ben.levinsky@amd.com?part=4