linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2]drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c Fix variable 'retval' set but not used

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]

Message-ID: <58611.1280834905@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:28:25 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net,
	gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c Fix variable 'retval' set but not used

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:26:28 PDT, "Justin P. Mattock" said:
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c

>  	if (alt->string)
> -		retval = device_create_file(&intf->dev, &dev_attr_interface);
> +		device_create_file(&intf->dev, &dev_attr_interface);
>  	intf->sysfs_files_created = 1;
>  	return 0;

What should the code do if device_create_file() manages to fail? Yes, ignoring
the return value is one option, but is it the best one?  'return ret;' might be
another one. Somebody who understands this code and has more caffeine than me
should look this over.

(Nothing personal Justin - it's just my opinion that *anytime* we have a patch
that remove a check for a return code, it needs to justify that ignoring the
return code is appropriate).

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped