linux-kernel - Re: [media-s3c-camif] question about arguments position

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:   Thu, 04 May 2017 14:50:04 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [media-s3c-camif] question about arguments position

Hello Sylwester,

Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>:

> Hi Gustavo,
>
> On 05/04/2017 09:05 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
>> camif_hw_set_effect() function do not match the order of the parameters:
>>
>> camif->colorfx_cb is passed to cr
>> camif->colorfx_cr is passed to cb
>>
>> This is the function prototype:
>>
>> void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect,
>>             unsigned int cr, unsigned int cb)
>>
>> My question here is if this is intentional?
>>
>> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be
>> great to hear any comment about it.
>
> You are right, it seems you have found a real bug. Feel free to send a patch.
> The best thing to do now might be to change the function prototype to:
>
> void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect,
>              unsigned int cb, unsigned int cr)
>

OK, I'll send a patch for this shortly.

Thanks for clarifying.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva