linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] staging: iio: tsl2x7x: add goto for TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER

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]

Message-ID: <20171023090642.26cp22adk6olktr6@mwanda>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:06:43 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
Cc:     jic23@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lars@...afoo.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jon.Brenner@....com, pmeerw@...erw.net, knaack.h@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] staging: iio: tsl2x7x: add goto for
 TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:06:32PM -0400, Brian Masney wrote:
> This patch adds a return_max label for the two cases that need to set
> the lux to TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW and return.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/iio/light/tsl2x7x.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/light/tsl2x7x.c b/drivers/staging/iio/light/tsl2x7x.c
> index 42ed9c015aaf..898304d65f64 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/light/tsl2x7x.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/light/tsl2x7x.c
> @@ -364,10 +364,8 @@ static int tsl2x7x_get_lux(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  	chip->als_cur_info.als_ch0 = ch0;
>  	chip->als_cur_info.als_ch1 = ch1;
>  
> -	if (ch0 >= chip->als_saturation || ch1 >= chip->als_saturation) {
> -		lux = TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW;
> +	if (ch0 >= chip->als_saturation || ch1 >= chip->als_saturation)
>  		goto return_max;
> -	}
>  
>  	if (!ch0) {
>  		/* have no data, so return LAST VALUE */
> @@ -418,11 +416,12 @@ static int tsl2x7x_get_lux(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  	lux = lux64;
>  	lux = (lux + 500) / 1000;
>  
> -	if (lux > TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW) /* check for overflow */
> +	if (lux > TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW) { /* check for overflow */
> +return_max:
>  		lux = TSL2X7X_LUX_CALC_OVER_FLOW;
> +	}

Ugh...  Wow.  No.  This terrible anti-pattern is spreading.  Don't do
this.

regards,
dan carpenter