linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up

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: <54A2DE7C.1050602@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:18:52 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
CC:	Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	Chun-Yeow Yeoh <yeohchunyeow@...il.com>,
	Yanbo Li <yanbol@....qualcomm.com>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up

Hello.

On 12/30/2014 03:20 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

> wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negative values so the tests
> for <= 0 are not needed and the case differentiation in the error handling
> path unnecessary.

    I decided to verify your statement and I saw that it seems wrong. 
do_wait_for_common() can return -ERESTARTSYS and the return value gets 
returned by its callers unchanged.

> patch was only compile tested x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m
> CONFIG_ATH10K=m

> patch is against linux-next 3.19.0-rc1 -next-20141226

    Rather patches. It would have been better to send one patch instead of 4 
patches with the same name.

WBR, Sergei

--
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/