linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: btf: remove a couple conditions

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: <20180428012646.r6idamuylruykb7h@kafai-mbp>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:27:11 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: btf: remove a couple conditions

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:26:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > > >>>> indent level.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > > >>> Thanks for the simplification!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> > > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next.  Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> > > >> you respin. Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
> > > feedback when you get a chance.
> > > 
> > 
> > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker
> > warning since it's a false positive.
> Right, I think patch 1 is not needed.  I would prefer to use a comment
> in those cases.
> 
> > Should I instead initialize the
> > size to zero or something just to silence it?
After another thought,  I think init size to zero is
fine which is less intrusive.

Thanks!
Martin

> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >