Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues

[Roger Quadros]

Hi Benedikt,

On 04/11/2022 21:33, coverity-bot wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
> Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project:
> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
> 
> You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
> lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
> 
>   Wed Nov 2 10:02:39 2022 -0400
>     89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions")
> 
> Coverity reported the following:
> 
> *** CID 1527139:  Control flow issues  (NO_EFFECT)
> drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c:1048 in gpmc_is_valid_waitpin()
> 1042     	spin_unlock(&gpmc_mem_lock);
> 1043     }
> 1044     EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_free);
> 1045
> 1046     static bool gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(u32 waitpin)

We will need to change this waitpin argument to int.
In addition we will also need to change
struct gpmc_waitpin->pin and struct gpmc_setting->wait_pin
to int as in the code we are relying on GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID logic which is -1.

> 1047     {
> vvv     CID 1527139:  Control flow issues  (NO_EFFECT)
> vvv     This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "waitpin >= 0U".
> 1048     	return waitpin >= 0 && waitpin < gpmc_nr_waitpins;
> 1049     }
> 1050
> 1051     static int gpmc_alloc_waitpin(struct gpmc_device *gpmc,
> 1052     			      struct gpmc_settings *p)
> 1053     {
> 
> If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as
> such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make
> sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please
> include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first):
> 
> Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527139 ("Control flow issues")
> Fixes: 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions")
> 
> Thanks for your attention!
> 

cheers,
-roger