linux-kernel - For help, whether to check the return value of sata_scr_read should be added in sata_print_link

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

Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 03:32:07 +0000
From:   Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To:     "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: For help, whether to check the return value of sata_scr_read should
 be added in sata_print_link_status

Hello
I have trouble reading the code, I hope you can help guide

The function sata_print_link_status in the file drivers/ata/libata-core.c checks the return value when the function sata_scr_read is called on line 3009, 
but does not check the return value when calling sata_scr_read on line 3011.
Why are two calls handled differently?
Is there any other code logic that guarantees that the 3011 line will not return an exception? 

drivers/ata/libata-core.c :
3005 static void sata_print_link_status(struct ata_link *link)
3006 {
3007     u32 sstatus, scontrol, tmp;
3008
3009     if (sata_scr_read(link, SCR_STATUS, &sstatus))
3010         return;
3011     sata_scr_read(link, SCR_CONTROL, &scontrol);
3012
3013     if (ata_phys_link_online(link)) {

Thanks