Re: [PATCH 1/6] ASoC: Intel: catpt: Fix offset checks

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:31:04PM +0100, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> On 2025-11-24 8:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 09:05:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 07:20:48PM +0100, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > > > On 2025-11-24 3:31 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 12:43:26PM +0100, Cezary Rojewski wrote:

...

> > > > > > static int catpt_restore_memdumps(struct catpt_dev *cdev, struct dma_chan *chan)
> > > > > 
> > > > > >    		off = catpt_to_host_offset(info->offset);
> > > > > > -		if (off < cdev->dram.start || off > cdev->dram.end)
> > > > > > +		if (off < cdev->dram.start || off + info->size >= cdev->dram.end)
> > > > > >    			continue;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm... I would rather do something like
> > 
> > > > > 		struct resource r;
> > 
> > You might need to nullify this as well:
> > 
> > 		struct resource r = {}; // or any equivalent
> 
> This made me realize variables 'r1', 'r2' and 'common' that are part of
> catpt_restore_fwimage() are not zeroed and utilizing resource_xxx() API
> without doing so is bogus. My plan is to the following: leave this very fix
> as-is (without refactoring) and follow it up immediately with patch that
> swaps manual manipulation with resource_xxx(), as you suggested.
> 
> Sounds good?

Yep! Thanks.

> > > > > 		...
> > > > > 		resource_set_range(catpt_to_host_offset(info->offset), info->size);
> > > > > 		if (!resource_contains())
> > > > > 			continue;
> > > > > 
> > > > > >    		dev_dbg(cdev->dev, "restoring memdump: off 0x%08x size %d\n",
> > > > > 
> > > > > OTOH it seems more invasive change for kinda a fix.
> > > > 
> > > > Looks elegant though. My idea was to avoid additional operations (which
> > > > resource_contains() does), perhaps unnecessarily as readability suffered
> > > > because of that. Ack.
> > > 
> > > Note, it's defined as static inline, if compiler can prove constiness of
> > > something, it will eliminate the code. TL;DR: let compiler to do its job.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko