Re: efi: Add 'capsule' update support

[Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, 02 May, at 09:25:00PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Matt Fleming,
> 
> The patch f0133f3c5b8b: "efi: Add 'capsule' update support" from Apr
> 25, 2016, leads to the following static checker warning:
> 
> 	drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c:109 efi_capsule_supported()
> 	warn: did you mean to pass the address of 'capsule'
> 
> drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c
>     91  int efi_capsule_supported(efi_guid_t guid, u32 flags, size_t size, int *reset)
>     92  {
>     93          efi_capsule_header_t *capsule;
>     94          efi_status_t status;
>     95          u64 max_size;
>     96          int rv = 0;
>     97  
>     98          if (flags & ~EFI_CAPSULE_SUPPORTED_FLAG_MASK)
>     99                  return -EINVAL;
>    100  
>    101          capsule = kmalloc(sizeof(*capsule), GFP_KERNEL);
>    102          if (!capsule)
>    103                  return -ENOMEM;
>    104  
>    105          capsule->headersize = capsule->imagesize = sizeof(*capsule);
>    106          memcpy(&capsule->guid, &guid, sizeof(efi_guid_t));
>    107          capsule->flags = flags;
>    108  
>    109          status = efi.query_capsule_caps(&capsule, 1, &max_size, reset);
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^
> If we modify capsule inside this function call then at the end of the
> function we aren't freeing the original pointer that we allocated.
> 
>    110          if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
>    111                  rv = efi_status_to_err(status);
>    112                  goto out;
>    113          }
>    114  
>    115          if (size > max_size)
>    116                  rv = -ENOSPC;
>    117  out:
>    118          kfree(capsule);
>    119          return rv;
>    120  }

We should be fine here, the firmware should not modify the argument
that we pass since we're simply querying whether or not the capsule is
supported.

Is there a cleanup that you'd suggest making to silence the static
checker warning?