netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] nfc: hci: pass callback data param as pointer in nci

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:   Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:58:30 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-nfc@...ts.01.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] nfc: hci: pass callback data param as pointer in
 nci_request()

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:56:19 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 15:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > This generates a bunch of warnings:
> > 
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:381:51: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:388:50: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:494:57: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:520:65: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:570:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:815:34: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > net/nfc/nci/core.c:856:50: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer  
> 
> Indeed. Not that code before was better - the logic was exactly the
> same. I might think more how to avoid these and maybe pass pointer to
> stack value (like in other cases).
> 
> The 7/8 and 8/8 could be skipped in such case.

We don't usually take parts of series, would you mind resending first 6
or respinning with the warnings addressed?

> > BTW applying this set will resolve the warnings introduced by applying
> > "part 2" out of order, right? No further action needed?  
> 
> Yes, it will resolve all warnings. No further action needed, at least I
> am not aware of any new issues.

Great, thanks!