[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50d6acaf-e34f-557f-46b6-b182fb9a441a@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:27:55 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] alpha: Move two assignments for the variable "res" in
srm_env_proc_write()
>> A local variable was set to an error code in two cases before a concrete
>> error situation was detected. Thus move the corresponding assignment into
>> an if branch to indicate a software failure there.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Acked-by: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>
Thanks for your positive feedback.
Unfortunately, I have got the impression that this update step is inappropriate
so far because the suggested change for the handling of the error code “-EFAULT”
can be incomplete (or a bit too much).
Which implementation would you prefer?
A) Keep the variable assignment before the check for the call of
the function “copy_from_user”
B) Add an assignment in another condition branch at the end.
res = (int) ret1;
+ } else {
+ res = -EFAULT;
}
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists