linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:05:55 +0200
From:	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	mlindner@...vell.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error
 return code

>
> Thanks for looking into these kind of problems. The contents
> of the patch are correct, but the automated commit message is useless.
> You shouldn't just blindly say what the automated
> script was looking for, you should describe what the bug is so that evaluators
> can decide what the impact is and if it should be backported to stable
> and vendor kernels.
>
> Please resubmit the patchs with a reasonable analysis in the commit message.
> Something like:
>
>   There is a bug in skge driver. If alloc_etherdev() fails, then
>   skge_devinit() will return NULL, and the skge_probe function incorrectly
>   returns success 0. It should return -ENOMEM instead.
>
>

Stephen, I do not want to include function names on the commit
message. What do you think about this updated message, is it
acceptable?

--- --- ---
This patch fixes a bug related to the return value of the function. In some
error cases, the function return non-negative SUCCESS values, when the
correct would be a negative ERROR value.

A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as
follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
(
if@p1 (\(ret < 0\|ret != 0\))
 { ... return ret; }
|
ret@p1 = 0
)
... when != ret = e1
    when != &ret
*if(...)
{
  ... when != ret = e2
      when forall
 return ret;
}

// </smpl>
--- --- ---


Thanks,

Peter

-- 
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/