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: <20170824210847.hypvvpzf5pjhppyt@mwanda>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:08:47 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 10:58:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
> 

I understand that.

> > 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.

Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
end of the function.

> 
> > Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> > inside the loop succeeds?
> 
> This not why we set prev_found.

Sure.

regards,
dan carpenter