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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:28:47 -0500 From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> CC: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990@...il.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>, <khilman@...com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR On 03/12/2013 06:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:58:29AM +0200, Silviu-Mihai Popescu wrote: >> This uses PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR in order to increase >> readability. >> >> Signed-off-by: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990@...il.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c | 5 +---- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c | 5 +---- >> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> index 1ec7f05..2a0816e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void) >> >> WARN(IS_ERR(pdev), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", oh_name); >> >> - return IS_ERR(pdev) ? PTR_ERR(pdev) : 0; >> + return PTR_RET(pdev); > > This is incorrect. > > The return value will be tested for < 0. Kernel pointers in general are > all above 3GB, and so are all "< 0". > > I'm afraid none of these changes stuff is an improvement - they all > introduce bugs. Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to me that PTR_RET() is defined as ... static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr) { if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0; } So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed? Jon -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists