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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter.senna@...il.com
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, 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

From: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 20:49:57 +0200

> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200
>>
>>> I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are
>>> asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch
>>> makes sense.  Can you please help me on that?
>>
>> Stop being so dense.
>>
>> We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed.
>>
>> Does it potentially cause an OOPS?  Bad reference counting and thus
>> potential leaks or early frees?
>>
>> You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug
>> being fixed.  We need that information.
>>
>> Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the
>> salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might
>> cause.
>>
>> It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx,
>> bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis.
> 
> Thank you David.
> 
> What about this as commit message?
> --- // --
> This patch fixes bug(s) related to return value of function(s). In
> some error cases, the function is returning non-negative SUCCESS
> value, when the correct would be negative ERROR value.
> 
> When on error, returning non negatives values, or SUCCESS, breaks error
> propagation, producing unpredictable behavior that are very difficult
> to debug.
> --- // --

What does it potentially cause the caller to do?  Will it potentially
treat an error as a success and as a result register an object
illegally?

Real analysis please.  The text you provided above is basically still
robotic and could be used to describe any error code return fix.
--
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/