linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: misc: add a missing continue and refactor code

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:48:37 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Chen <peter.chen@....com>,
        Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: misc: add a missing continue and refactor code

Hi Alan,

Quoting Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>> Code refactoring to make the flow easier to follow and add missing
>> 'continue' for case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1248733
>> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 50  
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> index 3525626..8723e33 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> @@ -124,6 +124,32 @@ static struct usb_device  
>> *testdev_to_usbdev(struct usbtest_dev *test)
>>
>>   
>> /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>>
>> +static inline void try_intr(struct usb_host_endpoint *e,
>> +			    struct usb_host_endpoint *int_in,
>> +			    struct usb_host_endpoint *int_out)
>> +{
>> +	if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc)) {
>> +		if (!int_in)
>> +			int_in = e;
>> +	} else {
>> +		if (!int_out)
>> +			int_out = e;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void try_iso(struct usb_host_endpoint *e,
>> +			   struct usb_host_endpoint *iso_in,
>> +			   struct usb_host_endpoint *iso_out)
>> +{
>> +	if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc)) {
>> +		if (!iso_in)
>> +			iso_in = e;
>> +	} else {
>> +		if (!iso_out)
>> +			iso_out = e;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>
> This is not at all what I had in mind.  First, it's incorrect (can you
> see why?).  Second, by "inline" I meant moving the code to be actually
> in-line next to the conditional, not some place else in a separate
> subroutine (even if the subroutine is declared inline).
>

Interesting... let me double check.

I thought it would've been better to have separate inline subroutines  
for those "goto".

> Also, the code for the USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK case should look like the
> other two.
>

Do you mean a 'continue' instead of the 'break'?

Thanks for you comments.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva