linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag

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: <6d3fb517adb8880d9f7642d185405590dc9f7e83.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:39:17 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com>,
        dedekind1@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        computersforpeace@...il.com, marek.vasut@...il.com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag

On Sun, 2018-07-01 at 23:01 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 1. Juli 2018, 22:54:32 CEST schrieb Joe Perches:
> > On Sun, 2018-07-01 at 22:33 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:35:57 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018, 09:40:53 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> > > > > Now that we have the logic for skipping CRC check for static UBI volumes
> > > > > in the core, let's expose it to users.
> > []
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c
> > []
> > > > > @@ -622,6 +622,10 @@ static int verify_mkvol_req(const struct ubi_device *ubi,
> > > > >  	    req->vol_type != UBI_STATIC_VOLUME)
> > > > >  		goto bad;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	if (req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG &&
> > > 
> > > Oops, missed that req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG check was
> > > missing parens (checkpatch --strict should complain about that).
> > 
> > Why should checkpatch complain?
> > & has higher precedence than &&.
> 
> The code is more readable.

IYO.  checkpatch doesn't care and I think it's unnecessary.

Just fyi:

checkpatch does suggest parenthesis removal with --strict
when using
	== or !=
with
	&& or ||

e.g.:

$ cat -n foo.c
     1	bool function(void)
     2	{
     3		if (foo & 1 && bar & 2)
     4			return true;
     5		if ((foo & 1) && (bar && 2))
     6			return true;
     7		if (foo == 1 && bar != 2)
     8			return true;
     9		if ((foo == 1) && (bar != 2))
    10			return true;
    11		return false;
    12	}

$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --strict foo.c
WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
#1: FILE: foo.c:1:
+bool function(void)

CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'foo == 1'
#9: FILE: foo.c:9:
+	if ((foo == 1) && (bar != 2))

CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'bar != 2'
#9: FILE: foo.c:9:
+	if ((foo == 1) && (bar != 2))

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 2 checks, 12 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

foo.c has style problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.