Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: remove variable 'status' set but not used

[Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>]

OK, I will make a modification and repost the patch.

Thanks
Chen Wandun

On 2019/11/21 5:34, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 11/18/19 9:53 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com> writes:
>>> Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
>>>
>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c: In function ras_epow_interrupt:
>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c:319:6: warning: variable status set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> But it almost certainly is wrong to not check the status.
> 
> Agreed, I started drafting a NACK response, but got sidetracked.
> 
>>
>> It's calling firmware and just assuming that the call succeeded. It then
>> goes on to use the result that should have been written by firmware, but
>> is now potentially random junk.
>>
>> So I'd much rather a patch to change it to check the status.
> 
> +1
> 
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c
>>> index 1d7f973..4a61d0f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c
>>> @@ -316,12 +316,11 @@ static irqreturn_t ras_hotplug_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>   /* Handle environmental and power warning (EPOW) interrupts. */
>>>   static irqreturn_t ras_epow_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>   {
>>> -	int status;
>>>   	int state;
>>>   	int critical;
>>>   
>>> -	status = rtas_get_sensor_fast(EPOW_SENSOR_TOKEN, EPOW_SENSOR_INDEX,
>>> -				      &state);
>>> +	rtas_get_sensor_fast(EPOW_SENSOR_TOKEN, EPOW_SENSOR_INDEX,
>>> +			     &state);
>>
>> This is calling a helper which already does some translation of the
>> return value, any value < 0 indicates an error.
> 
> There are three possible architected failures here: Hardware, Non-existant
> sensor, and an DR isolation error which namely would be reported in the status
> as -EIO, -EINVAL, and -EFAULT. Further, the EPOW sensor is required, and is not
> a DR entity so we can never get an -EINVAL or -EFAULT (baring broken firmware).
> This leaves -EIO (HARDWARE_ERROR) and as I mention further down this will
> generate its own error log in response. So, I don't think we need to do any
> reporting here, and just return.
> 
>>
>>> @@ -330,12 +329,12 @@ static irqreturn_t ras_epow_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>   
>>>   	spin_lock(&ras_log_buf_lock);
>>>   
>>> -	status = rtas_call(ras_check_exception_token, 6, 1, NULL,
>>> -			   RTAS_VECTOR_EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT,
>>> -			   virq_to_hw(irq),
>>> -			   RTAS_EPOW_WARNING,
>>> -			   critical, __pa(&ras_log_buf),
>>> -				rtas_get_error_log_max());
>>> +	rtas_call(ras_check_exception_token, 6, 1, NULL,
>>> +		  RTAS_VECTOR_EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT,
>>> +		  virq_to_hw(irq),
>>> +		  RTAS_EPOW_WARNING,
>>> +		  critical, __pa(&ras_log_buf),
>>> +		  rtas_get_error_log_max());
>>
>> This is directly calling firmware.
>>
>> As documented in LoPAPR, a negative status indicates an error, 0
>> indicates a new error log was found (ie. the function should continue),
>> or 1 there was no error log (ie. nothing to do).
> 
> It is highly unlikely that we will find no new error log since we are processing
> an interrupt that supposedly fired to tell us there is a new one. However, the
> ras_log_buf is never zeroed so in the unlikely case there is no new error log we
> will parse stale data from the previous log. Better safe than sorry and just return.
> 
> In the case of an error the only error code we supposedly can get here is -1
> (HARDWARE_ERROR), and the RTAS handling will generate an error log in response
> to that. So, I don't think we need to report anything here. I would suggest for
> the (status != 0) case that you just return.
> 
> -Tyrel
> 
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>>   	log_error(ras_log_buf, ERR_TYPE_RTAS_LOG, 0);
>>>   
>>> -- 
>>> 2.7.4
> 
> 
> .
>