netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] amd-xgbe: Resolve checkpatch warning about sscanf usage

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, 24 Jun 2014 15:00:25 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] amd-xgbe: Resolve checkpatch warning about
 sscanf usage

On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 16:19 -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Checkpatch issued a warning preferring to use kstrto<type> when
> using a single variable sscanf.  Change the sscanf invocation to
> a kstrtouint call.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-debugfs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-debugfs.c
[]
> @@ -165,10 +165,9 @@ static ssize_t xgbe_common_write(const char __user *buffer, size_t count,
>  		return len;
>  
>  	workarea[len] = '\0';
> -	if (sscanf(workarea, "%x", &scan_value) == 1)
> -		*value = scan_value;
> -	else
> -		return -EIO;
> +	ret = kstrtouint(workarea, 0, value);

Don't you need to use 16 for the base here?

> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

Are there any issues with any of the various callers
getting a different error return?

-EINVAL/-ERANGE vs -EIO ?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html