Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: Move Lenovo files into lenovo subdir

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

On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 01:30:25PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025, at 11:58 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
> > [also build test WARNING on next-20250606]
> > [cannot apply to v6.15]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:    
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Mark-Pearson/platform-x86-Move-Lenovo-files-into-lenovo-subdir/20250605-013934
> > base:   linus/master
> > patch link:    
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250604173702.3025074-1-mpearson-lenovo%40squebb.ca
> > patch subject: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: Move Lenovo files into lenovo 
> > subdir
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-078-20250606 
> > (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250606/202506062319.F0IpDxF6-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): 
> > (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250606/202506062319.F0IpDxF6-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new 
> > version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > | Closes: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202506062319.F0IpDxF6-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> >    drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c: In function 'certificate_store':
> >>> drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c:661:47: warning: '%s' directive argument is null [-Wformat-overflow=]
> >      661 |                 return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s,%s", arg1, 
> > arg2);
> >          |                                               ^~
> >    drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c:657:50: warning: '%s' 
> > directive argument is null [-Wformat-overflow=]
> >      657 |                 return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s,%s,%s",
> >          |                                                  ^~
> >
> >
> > vim +661 drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c
> >
> > 640a5fa50a42b9 drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2021-11-17 
> >  652  
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  653  static char *cert_command(struct tlmi_pwd_setting *setting, const 
> > char *arg1, const char *arg2)
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  654  {
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  655  	/* Prepend with SVC or SMC if multicert supported */
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  656  	if (tlmi_priv.pwdcfg.core.password_mode >= 
> > TLMI_PWDCFG_MODE_MULTICERT)
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  657  		return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s,%s,%s",
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  658  				 setting == tlmi_priv.pwd_admin ? "SVC" : "SMC",
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  659  				 arg1, arg2);
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  660  	else
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> > @661  		return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s,%s", arg1, arg2);
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  662  }
> > 5dcb5ef125907d drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c Mark Pearson 2024-10-24 
> >  663  
> >
> > -- 
> > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
> 
> I'm unable to reproduce this issue with a W=1 build

Do you have GCC-12?

> and I think it's a false positive.

I think the problematic line is in certificate_store().
You need to check the value of dmi_get_system_info().
Or make sure the DMI is always selected (depend on DMI
in Kconfig, perhaps).

> Am I safe to ignore this report?

Please, try to fix it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko