linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: dgnc: switch timeout to signed type

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: <20150529190134.GQ28762@mwanda>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 22:01:34 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@...il.com>,
	driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: dgnc: switch timeout to signed type

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:21:26PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 06:41:28PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > The schedule_timeout*() helpers take the timeout as signed long, as
> > > ch_close_delay in struct channel_t was not used for other purposes its
> > > type was switched to signed long and the declarations fixed up.
> > 
> > Uh, we never pass it to schedule_timeout etc and even if we did how
> > would that matter?  It's either 250 or 0.
> > 
> > What is the bug you are trying to fix and we can help you?
> >
> static code checkers being unhappy with type mismatch
> automatic type conversion is ok if necessary but in this
> case it simply is not as the ch_close_delay is only being
> used in this one place so why not do it type clean ?

This seems like a pointless warning.  What does the warning look like?
We pass ms to msecs_to_jiffies() and not to schedule_timeout() so it
seems like somewhere something is confused.

> I'll turn the question around - what reason would there be to
> go through type conversion if it is not needed ?

You can go crazy if you do ever pointless change which a static analysis
tool suggests...

Btw, Smatch says that "ms" is always 250 here, actually.  I was guessing
earlier when I said it could be zero.  Get a smarter static checker
which can read code.  :P

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/