linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v1 1/9] ptp: introduce programmable pins.

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: <20140311100818.GA4266@netboy>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:08:19 +0100
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@...cron.at>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stefan Sørensen 
	<stefan.sorensen@...ctralink.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v1 1/9] ptp: introduce programmable pins.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:58:45AM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
> >+	if (pin1 && pin1->func == PTP_PF_PHYSYNC) {
> >+		pr_err("sorry, cannot reprogram the calibration pin\n");
> >+		return -EINVAL;
> 
>            ^^^^
> Will this ever happen? pin1 && pin1->func == PTP_PF_PHYSYNC means
> that func == PTP_PF_PHYSYNC, but in this case you already return
> -EINVAL a few lines above.

This a bug. I really meant to test (pin2->func == PTP_PF_PHYSYNC) to
prevent clobbering the calibration function with some other function.
I'll fix it for v2.

Thanks,
Richard

--
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/