linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] video: fbdev: sis: condition with no effect

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:	Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:43:34 +0100
From:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:	Tormod Volden <lists.tormod@...il.com>
Cc:	Scot Doyle <lkml14@...tdoyle.com>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	Thomas Winischhofer <thomas@...ischhofer.net>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] video: fbdev: sis: condition with no effect

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Tormod Volden wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Scot Doyle wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> >> The if and the else branch code are identical - so the condition has no
> >> effect on the effective code - this patch removes the condition and the
> >> duplicated code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This code has been in here since commit 544393fe584d ("sisfb update") so I guess it is
> >> safe to simply remove the duplicated code if nobody noticed for 10 years.
> >>
> >> Note that the code is not really CodingStyle compliant - the lines inserted were formatted
> >> to satisfy the coding style but I'm unsure if it is not better to leave it in the
> >> old format.
> >>
> >> Patch was only compile tested with x86_64_defconfig +
> >> CONFIG_FB_SIS=m, CONFIG_FB_SIS_300=y, CONFIG_FB_SIS_315=y
> >>
> >> Patch is against 3.19.0-rc7 (localversion-next is -next-20150204)
> >>
> >>  drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c |    9 ++-------
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c
> >> index 295e0de..9533a8ab 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c
> >> @@ -7971,13 +7971,8 @@ SiS_SetCHTVReg(struct SiS_Private *SiS_Pr, unsigned short ModeNo, unsigned short
> >>           }
> >>        } else {                                               /* ---- PAL ---- */
> >>           /* We don't play around with FSCI in PAL mode */
> >> -         if(resindex == 0x04) {
> >> -            SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x20,0x00,0xEF);       /* loop filter off */
> >> -            SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x21,0x01,0xFE);       /* ACIV on */
> >> -         } else {
> >> -            SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x20,0x00,0xEF);       /* loop filter off */
> >> -            SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x21,0x01,0xFE);       /* ACIV on */
> >> -         }
> >> +       SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr, 0x20, 0x00, 0xEF); /* loop filter off */
> >> +       SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr, 0x21, 0x01, 0xFE); /* ACIV on */
> >>        }
> >>
> >>  #endif  /* 300 */
> >
> > The code covering the PAL case had this redundancy when it was introduced
> > in Linux 2.4.19.
> >
> > Lines 7934-7981 consider three variables: PAL, overscan, and resindex.
> > Given the "#ifdef 0" block, couldn't the current six sections collapse
> > into two? One for (!PAL && overscan && resindex==5) and another for the
> > rest?
> 
> Are we sure there isn't a typo in one of the duplicate clauses? Or
> wrong copy-pasting? Generally I am skeptical to "fixing" code without
> understanding what is behind or testing it, and just cosmetically
> brush over it. For now at least it is obvious that there is something
> wrong. In case (although an unlikely one) someone who understands the
> code and knows this chip comes along, he would quickly spot this.
> After your "fixups" this will be all forgotten. Additionally it adds
> to the impression that this code is being maintained, which is wrong.
> 
> I would understand an argument about annoying compiler warnings and
> the like, but in that case I would prefer to #if 0 it instead of
> "prettifying" it.
>
Its actually a static code checker that is fussing at this.
The #if 0 case is on my list as well - but thats a different 
scanner - and thus goes into a separate patch.

I agree that it could be a hidden bug - but given that its this
way for 10 years I doubt this.

thx!
hofrat
--
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/