linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpupower: Remove redundant error check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 17 May 2014 23:34:46 +0200
From:	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpupower: Remove redundant error check

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> index a416de8..4e2f35a 100644
>> --- a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> +++ b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> @@ -320,12 +320,11 @@ int cmd_freq_set(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>>               printf(_("Setting cpu: %d\n"), cpu);
>>               ret = do_one_cpu(cpu, &new_pol, freq, policychange);
>> -             if (ret)
>> +             if (ret) {
>> +                     print_error();
>>                       break;
>
> Just return directly instead of break return;
>
>> +             }
>>       }
>>
>> -     if (ret)
>> -             print_error();
>> -
>>       return ret;
>
> Are you sure this patch is correct?  Theoretically, it's possible to
> reach the end of this function without going hitting the
> "ret = do_one_cpu(...);" assignment.
>
> Don't be fooled by the "int ret = 0;" initialization, that is a trick
> initialization to mislead the unwary.  By the end of the do while loop
> then "ret" is always -1.
I have missed that, thank you for pointing this out. This patch is
wrong and should not be applied, please ignore it.

Dan, should I just leave this file as it is?

>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>



-- 
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/