On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > The "id" variable is an enum and in this context it's treated as an
> > unsigned int so the error handling can never trigger.  The
> > ->get_client_id() functions do not currently return any errors but
> > I imagine that if they did, then the intention was to return
> > VGA_SWITCHEROO_UNKNOWN_ID on error.  Let's check for both negatives
> > and UNKNOWN_ID so we'll catch it either way.
> >
> > Reported-by: Su Hui <su...@nfschina.com>
> > Closes: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231026021056.850680-1-su...@nfschina.com/
> > Fixes: 4aaf448fa975 ("vga_switcheroo: set audio client id according to 
> > bound GPU id")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/vga/vga_switcheroo.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/vga/vga_switcheroo.c 
> > b/drivers/gpu/vga/vga_switcheroo.c
> > index 18f2c92beff8..216fb208eb31 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/vga/vga_switcheroo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/vga/vga_switcheroo.c
> > @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ int vga_switcheroo_register_audio_client(struct pci_dev 
> > *pdev,
> >     mutex_lock(&vgasr_mutex);
> >     if (vgasr_priv.active) {
> >             id = vgasr_priv.handler->get_client_id(vga_dev);
> > -           if (id < 0) {
> > +           if ((int)id < 0 || id == VGA_SWITCHEROO_UNKNOWN_ID) {
> 
> Maybe we want to do something else here... see [1].
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgg2A_iHNwf_JDjYJF=xhnkvgojgp50fzvwnia2z01...@mail.gmail.com
> 

I feel like my patch is good enough...  I guess the concern here is that
GCC could change enums to something else.  I don't think that's likely as
it would break a lot of code.  The other option, which is a good option,
is to change the function signature for vgasr_priv.handler->get_client_id()
so that we do:

        ret = vgasr_priv.handler->get_client_id(vga_dev, &id);
        if (ret)
                return;

That's better code, honestly.  But I can't find motivation enough to do
the work.

regards,
dan carpenter

Reply via email to