linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] asus-laptop: remove unused variable

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: <20160415003429.GB3232@f23x64.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:34:29 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Giedrius Statkevičius 
	<giedrius.statkevicius@...il.com>
Cc:	corentin.chary@...il.com, acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] asus-laptop: remove unused variable

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:48:52AM +0300, Giedrius Statkevičius wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 08:21:21PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:20:01PM +0300, Giedrius Statkevičius wrote:
> > > `out' was assigned value but it was never used so remove it
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Giedrius Statkevičius <giedrius.statkevicius@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/platform/x86/asus-laptop.c | 3 ---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-laptop.c
> > > index d86d42e..39ddcee 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-laptop.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-laptop.c
> > > @@ -946,11 +946,8 @@ static ssize_t sysfs_acpi_set(struct asus_laptop *asus,
> > >  			      const char *method)
> > >  {
> > >  	int rv, value;
> > > -	int out = 0;
> > >  
> > >  	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
> > > -	if (rv > 0)
> > > -		out = value ? 1 : 0;
> > >  
> > >  	if (write_acpi_int(asus->handle, method, value))
> > 
> > out is indeed unused, however the rv > 0 condition is relevant as <=0 will pass
> > value uninitialized to write_acpi_int.
> That's indeed a problem. Somehow I missed that :( Should I make a v2 to include
> another patch that checks for rv < 0 or send it as an independent one?
> 

Please just rewrite this one to do the right thing as a v2.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center