Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of set_power_profile_mode

Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of set_power_profile_mode

[Jiri Slaby]

FTR:
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
Ma Jun (Jun.Ma2@amd.com)
The email address you entered couldn't be found

So the author of the patch CANNOT respond. Anyone else?

On 19. 08. 24, 9:49, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12. 08. 24, 18:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 6.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me 
>> know.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> From: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@amd.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit f683f24093dd94a831085fe0ea8e9dc4c6c1a2d1 ]
>>
>> Function .set_power_profile_mode need an array as input
>> parameter.
> 
> Which one and why?
> 
> static int smu_bump_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu,
>                                             long *param,
>                                             uint32_t param_size)
> 
>    int (*set_power_profile_mode)(struct smu_context *smu, long *input, 
> uint32_t size);
> 
> static int pp_set_power_profile_mode(void *handle, long *input, uint32_t 
> size)
> 
>    int (*set_power_profile_mode)(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, long *input, 
> uint32_t size);
> 
> static int smu10_set_power_profile_mode(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, long 
> *input, uint32_t size)
> {
>          int workload_type = 0;
>          int result = 0;
> 
>          if (input[size] > PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COMPUTE) {
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no problem doing input[0] when a pointer to a local 
> non-array variable is passed, is it?
> 
>> So define variable workload as an array to fix
>> the below coverity warning.
> 
> This very much looks like one of many Coverity false positives.
> 
>> "Passing &workload to function hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode
>> which uses it as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret adjacent
>> memory locations"
> 
> Care to explain how this fixes anything but a Coverity false positive? 
> Why was this included in a stable tree at all?
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@amd.com>
>> Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ...
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/amd_powerplay.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/amd_powerplay.c
>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
>>           enum PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE type, bool en)
>>   {
>>       struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr = handle;
>> -    long workload;
>> +    long workload[1];
> 
> This only obfuscates the code. So please revert this if you cannot 
> explain what real issue this actually fixes.
> 
>>       uint32_t index;
>>       if (!hwmgr || !hwmgr->pm_en)
>> @@ -947,12 +947,12 @@ static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void 
>> *handle,
>>           hwmgr->workload_mask &= ~(1 << hwmgr->workload_prority[type]);
>>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
>>           index = index > 0 && index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index - 
>> 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>>       } else {
>>           hwmgr->workload_mask |= (1 << hwmgr->workload_prority[type]);
>>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
>>           index = index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index - 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>>       }
>>       if (type == PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COMPUTE &&
>> @@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
>>       }
>>       if (hwmgr->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL)
>> -        hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, &workload, 0);
>> +        hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, workload, 0);
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
>> index 1d829402cd2e2..f4bd8e9357e22 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ int psm_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct pp_hwmgr 
>> *hwmgr, bool skip_display_set
>>                           struct pp_power_state *new_ps)
>>   {
>>       uint32_t index;
>> -    long workload;
>> +    long workload[1];
>>       if (hwmgr->not_vf) {
>>           if (!skip_display_settings)
>> @@ -294,10 +294,10 @@ int psm_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct 
>> pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, bool skip_display_set
>>       if (hwmgr->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL) {
>>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
>>           index = index > 0 && index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index - 
>> 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
>> -        if (hwmgr->power_profile_mode != workload && 
>> hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode)
>> -            hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, 
>> &workload, 0);
>> +        if (hwmgr->power_profile_mode != workload[0] && 
>> hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode)
>> +            hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, 
>> workload, 0);
>>       }
>>       return 0;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
>> index e1796ecf9c05c..06409133b09b1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
>> @@ -2220,7 +2220,7 @@ static int smu_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct 
>> smu_context *smu,
>>   {
>>       int ret = 0;
>>       int index = 0;
>> -    long workload;
>> +    long workload[1];
>>       struct smu_dpm_context *smu_dpm_ctx = &(smu->smu_dpm);
>>       if (!skip_display_settings) {
>> @@ -2260,10 +2260,10 @@ static int 
>> smu_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct smu_context *smu,
>>           smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level != 
>> AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_PERF_DETERMINISM) {
>>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
>>           index = index > 0 && index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index - 
>> 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
>> -        if (smu->power_profile_mode != workload)
>> -            smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, &workload, 0);
>> +        if (smu->power_profile_mode != workload[0])
>> +            smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, workload, 0);
>>       }
>>       return ret;
>> @@ -2313,7 +2313,7 @@ static int smu_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
>>   {
>>       struct smu_context *smu = handle;
>>       struct smu_dpm_context *smu_dpm_ctx = &(smu->smu_dpm);
>> -    long workload;
>> +    long workload[1];
>>       uint32_t index;
>>       if (!smu->pm_enabled || !smu->adev->pm.dpm_enabled)
>> @@ -2326,17 +2326,17 @@ static int smu_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
>>           smu->workload_mask &= ~(1 << smu->workload_prority[type]);
>>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
>>           index = index > 0 && index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index - 
>> 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
>>       } else {
>>           smu->workload_mask |= (1 << smu->workload_prority[type]);
>>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
>>           index = index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index - 1 : 0;
>> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
>> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
>>       }
>>       if (smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL &&
>>           smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level != 
>> AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_PERF_DETERMINISM)
>> -        smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, &workload, 0);
>> +        smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, workload, 0);
>>       return 0;
>>   }
> 
> thanks,

-- 
js
suse labs

RE: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of set_power_profile_mode

[Deucher, Alexander]

[Public]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 3:54 AM
> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>;
> stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev; Deucher, Alexander
> <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>; Koenig,
> Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>;
> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of
> set_power_profile_mode
>
> FTR:
> Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
> Ma Jun (Jun.Ma2@amd.com)
> The email address you entered couldn't be found
>
> So the author of the patch CANNOT respond. Anyone else?

This was a Coverity fix.  As to why it was pulled into stable, I think Sasha's scripts picked it up.

Alex


>
> On 19. 08. 24, 9:49, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 12. 08. 24, 18:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> 6.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let
> >> me know.
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >>
> >> From: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@amd.com>
> >>
> >> [ Upstream commit f683f24093dd94a831085fe0ea8e9dc4c6c1a2d1 ]
> >>
> >> Function .set_power_profile_mode need an array as input parameter.
> >
> > Which one and why?
> >
> > static int smu_bump_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu,
> >                                             long *param,
> >                                             uint32_t param_size)
> >
> >    int (*set_power_profile_mode)(struct smu_context *smu, long *input,
> > uint32_t size);
> >
> > static int pp_set_power_profile_mode(void *handle, long *input,
> > uint32_t
> > size)
> >
> >    int (*set_power_profile_mode)(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, long *input,
> > uint32_t size);
> >
> > static int smu10_set_power_profile_mode(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, long
> > *input, uint32_t size) {
> >          int workload_type = 0;
> >          int result = 0;
> >
> >          if (input[size] > PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COMPUTE) {
> >
> >
> > There is absolutely no problem doing input[0] when a pointer to a
> > local non-array variable is passed, is it?
> >
> >> So define variable workload as an array to fix the below coverity
> >> warning.
> >
> > This very much looks like one of many Coverity false positives.
> >
> >> "Passing &workload to function
> >> hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode
> >> which uses it as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret
> >> adjacent memory locations"
> >
> > Care to explain how this fixes anything but a Coverity false positive?
> > Why was this included in a stable tree at all?
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@amd.com>
> >> Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> > ...
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/amd_powerplay.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/amd_powerplay.c
> >> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void
> >> *handle,
> >>           enum PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE type, bool en)
> >>   {
> >>       struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr = handle;
> >> -    long workload;
> >> +    long workload[1];
> >
> > This only obfuscates the code. So please revert this if you cannot
> > explain what real issue this actually fixes.
> >
> >>       uint32_t index;
> >>       if (!hwmgr || !hwmgr->pm_en)
> >> @@ -947,12 +947,12 @@ static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void
> >> *handle,
> >>           hwmgr->workload_mask &= ~(1 <<
> >> hwmgr->workload_prority[type]);
> >>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index > 0 && index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index -
> >> 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >>       } else {
> >>           hwmgr->workload_mask |= (1 <<
> >> hwmgr->workload_prority[type]);
> >>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index - 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >>       }
> >>       if (type == PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COMPUTE && @@ -962,7
> +962,7 @@
> >> static int pp_dpm_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
> >>       }
> >>       if (hwmgr->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL)
> >> -        hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, &workload,
> >> 0);
> >> +        hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, workload,
> >> +0);
> >>       return 0;
> >>   }
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
> >> index 1d829402cd2e2..f4bd8e9357e22 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/pp_psm.c
> >> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ int psm_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct
> >> pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, bool skip_display_set
> >>                           struct pp_power_state *new_ps)
> >>   {
> >>       uint32_t index;
> >> -    long workload;
> >> +    long workload[1];
> >>       if (hwmgr->not_vf) {
> >>           if (!skip_display_settings) @@ -294,10 +294,10 @@ int
> >> psm_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct
> >> pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, bool skip_display_set
> >>       if (hwmgr->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL) {
> >>           index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index > 0 && index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index -
> >> 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
> >> -        if (hwmgr->power_profile_mode != workload &&
> >> hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode)
> >> -            hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr,
> >> &workload, 0);
> >> +        if (hwmgr->power_profile_mode != workload[0] &&
> >> hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode)
> >> +            hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr,
> >> workload, 0);
> >>       }
> >>       return 0;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
> >> index e1796ecf9c05c..06409133b09b1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c
> >> @@ -2220,7 +2220,7 @@ static int
> >> smu_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct
> >> smu_context *smu,
> >>   {
> >>       int ret = 0;
> >>       int index = 0;
> >> -    long workload;
> >> +    long workload[1];
> >>       struct smu_dpm_context *smu_dpm_ctx = &(smu->smu_dpm);
> >>       if (!skip_display_settings) {
> >> @@ -2260,10 +2260,10 @@ static int
> >> smu_adjust_power_state_dynamic(struct smu_context *smu,
> >>           smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level !=
> >> AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_PERF_DETERMINISM) {
> >>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index > 0 && index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index -
> >> 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >> -        if (smu->power_profile_mode != workload)
> >> -            smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, &workload, 0);
> >> +        if (smu->power_profile_mode != workload[0])
> >> +            smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, workload, 0);
> >>       }
> >>       return ret;
> >> @@ -2313,7 +2313,7 @@ static int smu_switch_power_profile(void
> >> *handle,
> >>   {
> >>       struct smu_context *smu = handle;
> >>       struct smu_dpm_context *smu_dpm_ctx = &(smu->smu_dpm);
> >> -    long workload;
> >> +    long workload[1];
> >>       uint32_t index;
> >>       if (!smu->pm_enabled || !smu->adev->pm.dpm_enabled) @@ -
> 2326,17
> >> +2326,17 @@ static int smu_switch_power_profile(void *handle,
> >>           smu->workload_mask &= ~(1 << smu->workload_prority[type]);
> >>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index > 0 && index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index -
> >> 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >>       } else {
> >>           smu->workload_mask |= (1 << smu->workload_prority[type]);
> >>           index = fls(smu->workload_mask);
> >>           index = index <= WORKLOAD_POLICY_MAX ? index - 1 : 0;
> >> -        workload = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >> +        workload[0] = smu->workload_setting[index];
> >>       }
> >>       if (smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level != AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_MANUAL
> &&
> >>           smu_dpm_ctx->dpm_level !=
> >> AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_PERF_DETERMINISM)
> >> -        smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, &workload, 0);
> >> +        smu_bump_power_profile_mode(smu, workload, 0);
> >>       return 0;
> >>   }
> >
> > thanks,
>
> --
> js
> suse labs

Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of set_power_profile_mode

[Jiri Slaby]

On 19. 08. 24, 22:12, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> [Public]
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
>> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 3:54 AM
>> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>;
>> stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev; Deucher, Alexander
>> <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>; Koenig,
>> Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>;
>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of
>> set_power_profile_mode
>>
>> FTR:
>> Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
>> Ma Jun (Jun.Ma2@amd.com)
>> The email address you entered couldn't be found
>>
>> So the author of the patch CANNOT respond. Anyone else?
> 
> This was a Coverity fix.  As to why it was pulled into stable, I think Sasha's scripts picked it up.

Sorry, but again, why do we change the kernel to _silence_ Coverity? We 
do not do this even for compilers.

I am asking, why do you call this a fix at all? What does it fixes?

And finally, Coverity has a "False positive" selection box to dismiss a 
warning for good. One needs not changing the code.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs

RE: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of set_power_profile_mode

[Deucher, Alexander]

[Public]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:39 AM
> To: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev; Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>; Koenig,
> Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>;
> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type of
> set_power_profile_mode
>
> On 19. 08. 24, 22:12, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> > [Public]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 3:54 AM
> >> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>;
> >> stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev; Deucher, Alexander
> >> <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>; Koenig,
> >> Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui
> >> <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.10 090/263] drm/amdgpu/pm: Fix the param type
> >> of set_power_profile_mode
> >>
> >> FTR:
> >> Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
> >> Ma Jun (Jun.Ma2@amd.com)
> >> The email address you entered couldn't be found
> >>
> >> So the author of the patch CANNOT respond. Anyone else?
> >
> > This was a Coverity fix.  As to why it was pulled into stable, I think Sasha's
> scripts picked it up.
>
> Sorry, but again, why do we change the kernel to _silence_ Coverity? We do
> not do this even for compilers.
>
> I am asking, why do you call this a fix at all? What does it fixes?

I don't think this is stable material.  As I said, it got picked up by a script that nominates patches for stable.  I guess more people need to review the patches that get nominated for stable.  I personally can't keep up with all of them.

Alex

>
> And finally, Coverity has a "False positive" selection box to dismiss a warning
> for good. One needs not changing the code.
>
> thanks,
> --
> js
> suse labs