linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: fix returned errno code in dgap

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: <5600F773.5040208@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:38:43 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>,
	driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: fix returned errno code in
 dgap_parsefile()

Hello Sudip,

On 09/22/2015 06:52 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:39:36AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
>> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
>> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
> Just a little doubt. caller means the function which is calling this
> dgap_parsefile() or you meant the user?

I meant whatever function calls dgap_parsefile(), which currently is
only dgap_firmware_load().

> The function which is calling this dgap_parsefile() is just checking if
> it has received 0 or something else. Something else is error and it
> rerturns -EINVAL for all types of error (ofcourse that is also wrong).
> So the user will see -EINVAL for all types of error in dgap_parsefile().
>

Yes, I also verified what dgap_firmware_load() does with the returned error
code to make sure that it was safe to do this change without affecting the
rest of the driver.

But I believe the patch and what the commit message says is true regardless
of the fact that the caller is just checking for != 0. dgap_firmware_load()
stills gets a wrong error condition whether it's checking it or not.
 
> regards
> sudip
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
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/