linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi/apei: Fix in-correct return value

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]

Date:   Sun, 23 Oct 2016 02:09:28 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tbaicar@...eaurora.org,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/apei: Fix in-correct return value

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 06:37:35 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:28:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Boris, all fine here?
> 
> Short answer: Yeah, looks ok to me.
> 
> Longer answer: I mean, this way ghes_proc() *actually* propagates the
> return value of ghes_read_estatus() and we don't do any processing if it
> failed.
> 
> Which doesn't really tell me a whole lot about the actual processing,
> i.e., what ghes_do_proc() did.
> 
> But ghes_do_proc() doesn't return anything and ghes_proc()'s retval is
> used only in contexts where we're asking whether something got processed
> or not.
> 
> And for that, that fix is adequate. So:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

Thanks!