linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

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: <20161203153535.GA7976@bp>
Date:   Sat,  3 Dec 2016 23:38:56 +0800
From:   Pan Bian <bianpan201602@....com>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Dmitry Tarnyagin <dmitry.tarnyagin@...kless.no>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     PanBian <bianpan2016@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

From: PanBian <bianpan2016@....com>

Hello Sergei,

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:17:51PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 12/3/2016 2:18 PM, Pan Bian wrote:
> 
> >In function caif_sktinit_module(), the check of the return value of
> >sock_register() seems ineffective. This patch fixes it.
> >
> >Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188751
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <bianpan2016@....com>
> >---
> > net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/caif/caif_socket.c b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >index aa209b1..2a689a3 100644
> >--- a/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >+++ b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >@@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int caif_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
> > static int __init caif_sktinit_module(void)
> > {
> > 	int err = sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
> >-	if (!err)
> >+	if (err)
> > 		return err;
> 
>    Why not just:
> 
> 	return sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
>
	Your solution looks much cleaner.

	But I am not really sure whether it is the author's intention to
	return 0 anyway. Do you have any idea?

	Thanks!
> > 	return 0;
> > }
> 
> MBR, Sergei
> 

Best regards,
Pan