linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: xen-front: remove redundant error check on ret

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: <ee539e2d-568e-4bfa-a4aa-4a9b39bc1bd8@sakamocchi.jp>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 07:42:12 +0900
From:   Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@...m.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: xen-front: remove redundant error check on
 ret

Hi,

On May 28 2018 06:23, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The error for a -ve value in ret is redundant as all previous
> assignments to ret have an associated -ve check and hence it
> is impossible for ret to be less that zero at the point of the
> check.  Remove this redundant error check.
> 
> Detected by CoveritScan, CID#1469407 ("Logically Dead code")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>   sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c | 2 --
>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> index d70a62e7f910..102d6e096cc8 100644
> --- a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> +++ b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c
> @@ -351,8 +351,6 @@ int xen_snd_front_evtchnl_create_all(struct xen_snd_front_info *front_info,
>   			}
>   		}
>   	}
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		goto fail;
>   
>   	front_info->num_evt_pairs = num_streams;
>   	return 0;

Yep. All branches for error path on the nested for loop have goto 
statement, thus no need to check error outer the loop.

Reviewed-by: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>


Takashi Sakamoto