linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker 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: <20170824205844.3wkrq6vb7kv45vnv@pd.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 22:58:44 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.

You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
allocation fails.

> The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> from the loop.

Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

> Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> inside the loop succeeds?

This not why we set prev_found.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.