linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mux: checking for IS_ERR() instead of NULL or vice versa

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: <8a1d806c-1626-0558-855b-02d7396baae4@axentia.se>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:47:38 +0100
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mux: checking for IS_ERR() instead of NULL or vice versa

On 2017-03-14 08:56, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This error handling is mixed up.  mux_chip_alloc() doesn't return error
> pointers but devm_mux_chip_alloc() does.
> 
> Fixes: 4f5078327db1 ("mux: minimal mux subsystem and gpio-based mux controller")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>

Eeek, thanks for pointing this out! I have apparently stared at this for
too long...

However, you did not update the documentation (in include/linux/mux.h) to
match the code, so I'm going to use an alternative (and more localized) patch
instead to align the code with the documentation.

Patch in followup email, please review! I also updated the Fixes tag
since I have amended the buggy patch since the version that is currently
in linux-next was picked up (linux-next isn't getting any updates this
week, which is why you're seeing "old" stuff).

Cheers,
Peter