linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcm2048: Fix checkpatch checks

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:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:07:46 +0800
From:   Man Choy <manchoyy@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm2048: Fix checkpatch checks

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:52:37AM +0800, Man Choy wrote:
>> Fix following checks:
>>
>> CHECK: Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()
>> +       BUG_ON((index+2) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>>
>> CHECK: spaces preferred around that '+' (ctx:VxV)
>> +       BUG_ON((index+2) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>>                      ^
>>
>> CHECK: Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()
>> +       BUG_ON((index+4) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>>
>> CHECK: spaces preferred around that '+' (ctx:VxV)
>> +       BUG_ON((index+4) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>>                      ^
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/media/bcm2048/radio-bcm2048.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/bcm2048/radio-bcm2048.c b/drivers/staging/media/bcm2048/radio-bcm2048.c
>> index 37bd439..d5ee279 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/bcm2048/radio-bcm2048.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/bcm2048/radio-bcm2048.c
>> @@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ static int bcm2048_parse_rt_match_c(struct bcm2048_device *bdev, int i,
>>       if (crc == BCM2048_RDS_CRC_UNRECOVARABLE)
>>               return 0;
>>
>> -     BUG_ON((index+2) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>> +     WARN_ON((index + 2) >= BCM2048_MAX_RDS_RT);
>
> Ick, no to all of these!  What happens if this is true, the code will
> crash, right?  You have to properly recover from this, don't just throw
> the message out to userspace and then keep on going.
>
> You can't just do a search/replace for this, otherwise it would have
> been done already :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Okay, noted. Thanks.