linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: xen-front: remove redundant error check on ret

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:08 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     "Takashi Sakamoto" <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>
Cc:     <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "Colin King" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "Oleksandr Andrushchenko" <oleksandr_andrushchenko@...m.com>,
        <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@...ex.cz>,
        <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: xen-front: remove redundant error check on ret

On Mon, 28 May 2018 00:42:12 +0200,
Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On May 28 2018 06:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> > The error for a -ve value in ret is redundant as all previous
> > assignments to ret have an associated -ve check and hence it
> > is impossible for ret to be less that zero at the point of the
> > check.  Remove this redundant error check.
> >
> > Detected by CoveritScan, CID#1469407 ("Logically Dead code")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > ---
> >   sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c | 2 --
> >   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> > index d70a62e7f910..102d6e096cc8 100644
> > --- a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> > +++ b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> > @@ -351,8 +351,6 @@ int xen_snd_front_evtchnl_create_all(struct xen_snd_front_info *front_info,
> >   			}
> >   		}
> >   	}
> > -	if (ret < 0)
> > -		goto fail;
> >     	front_info->num_evt_pairs = num_streams;
> >   	return 0;
> 
> Yep. All branches for error path on the nested for loop have goto
> statement, thus no need to check error outer the loop.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>

Applied, thanks.


Takashi