linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sm501fb: Silence a coccinelle script warning.

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: <be213113-de88-387b-e9b0-e85b556af1f2@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:26:17 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc:     khoroshilov@...ras.ru, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sm501fb: Silence a coccinelle script warning.

Le 14/06/2017 à 12:54, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, May 08, 2017 08:11:16 AM Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> According to surrounding goto, it is likely that 'goto err_probed_panel' is
>> expected here.
>> This change is just done in order to silence some coccinelle scripts
>> which try to detect wrongly ordered goto.
>>
>> If 'info->fb[HEAD_PANEL]' and' 'info->fb[HEAD_CRT]' are both NULL, this
>> means that no 'framebuffer_alloc' has been performed, so 'goto err_alloc'
>> looks fine.
>> Anyway, it is also harmless in this case to call 'framebuffer_release'.
>> The code looks more straight forward.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> It seems that the code for supporting only selected framebuffers
> (only HEAD_PANEL fb or only HEAD_CRT fb) is broken anyway as at least
> the suspend/resume support assumes that both framebuffers are always
> present. Also all sm501fb driver users always try try to initialize
> both framebuffers. Therefore I would prefer the removal of non-working
> individual framebuffers support (the code that your patch modifies
> would be removed as well). Could you please look into it?
Thx for the feedback, but no, I won't be able to go further.
I don't know the code enough in this area.
Sorry.

Best regards,
CJ