linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] HID: usbkbd: return proper error code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57C86C29.1070807@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 01 Sep 2016 23:28:01 +0530
From:   Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
CC:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: usbkbd: return proper error code

On Thursday 01 September 2016 04:51 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>
>> Use proper error code instead of using -1 on failure to allocate
>> memory. We may use the error code later in the caller.
>
> But we don't. usb_kbd_probe() returns -ENOMEM in case usb_kbd_alloc_mem()
> fails anyway, so I fail to see the point of the change really.
>

Well, yes, we don't as of now.
When I was reading the code for something related to my day job I was a 
bit confused with -1 instead of a proper error code. I am sure there 
will be many others like me.
Its fine if you think the change is not needed.

regards
sudip