From patchwork Wed Aug 30 17:41:27 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: dann frazier X-Patchwork-Id: 807799 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3xjCW675nKz9sN5; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 03:42:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1dn70C-0002mY-7B; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:42:08 +0000 Received: from complete.lackof.org ([198.49.126.79]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1dn701-0002jS-CR for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:41:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (c-107-2-141-92.hsd1.co.comcast.net [107.2.141.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by complete.lackof.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D480933E0259 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:41:55 -0600 (MDT) From: dann frazier To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 5/6][SRU Zesty] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Fix mem frame loop initialization Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:41:27 -0600 Message-Id: <20170830174128.32541-6-dann.frazier@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.1 In-Reply-To: <20170830174128.32541-1-dann.frazier@canonical.com> References: <20170830174128.32541-1-dann.frazier@canonical.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on complete.lackof.org X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com From: Matthias Kaehlcke BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1713821 The loop to find the best memory frame in arch_timer_mem_acpi_init() initializes the loop counter with itself ('i = i'), which is suspicious in the first place and pointed out by clang. The loop condition is 'i < timer_count' and a prior for loop exits when 'i' reaches 'timer_count', therefore the second loop is never executed. Initialize the loop counter with 0 to iterate over all timers, which supposedly was the intention before the typo monster attacked. Fixes: c2743a36765d3 ("clocksource: arm_arch_timer: add GTDT support for memory-mapped timer") Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke Reported-by: Ard Biesheuvel Acked-by: Mark Rutland Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano (cherry picked from commit d197f7988721221fac64f899efd7657c15281810) Signed-off-by: dann frazier --- drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c index 1c46d9ac6f21..8ce9ac6970a9 100644 --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c @@ -1450,7 +1450,7 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_acpi_init(int platform_timer_count) * While unlikely, it's theoretically possible that none of the frames * in a timer expose the combination of feature we want. */ - for (i = i; i < timer_count; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < timer_count; i++) { timer = &timers[i]; frame = arch_timer_mem_find_best_frame(timer);