Re: [PATCH] powerpc/ipic: Fix a bounds check in ipic_set_priority()

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> writes:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:
>> > The ipic_info[] array only has 95 elements so I have made the bounds
>> > check smaller to prevent a read overflow.  It was Smatch that found
>> > this issue:
>> >
>> >     arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c:784 ipic_set_priority()
>> >     error: buffer overflow 'ipic_info' 95 <= 127
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>> > ---
>> > I wasn't able to find any callers of this code.  Maybe we removed the
>> > last one in commit b9f0f1bb2bca ("[POWERPC] Adapt ipic driver to new
>> > host_ops interface, add set_irq_type to set IRQ sense").  So perhaps we
>> > should just remove it.  I'm not really comfortable doing that myself,
>> > because I don't know the code well enough and can't build test
>> > it properly.
>>
>> Hah wow, last usage removed in 2006!
>>
>> I don't see any mention of it since then, so I'll remove it. If it
>> breaks something we can put it back.
>>
>> Can smatch help us find things like this that are defined non-static but
>> never used?
>
> I wrote a Coccinelle script for this, that just uses grep.  Of course the
> results need checking because uses can be constructed within macros using
> #.

That would be cool. I can't immediately see it in scripts/coccinelle, is
it somewhere else?

> Are things that are defined static but are never used useful to keep
> around?

No, but the compiler will usually tell us about them via -Wunused-function.

cheers