linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/olpc: remove duplicated check on node == -1

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]

Date:   Sun, 9 Dec 2018 18:10:02 +0100
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/olpc: remove duplicated check on node == -1

Le 09/12/2018 à 16:01, Colin King a écrit :
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>
> Currently the node == -1 check is being performed twice, the
> second check is redundant and can be removed.  Fix this by
> removing the redundant second check and moving the first check
> into a combined check with the result from the olpc_ofw call.
>
> Detected by cppcheck:
> Identical condition '(s32)node==-1', second condition is always false
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c | 5 +----
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> index b4ab779f1d47..658363ec3ff3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> @@ -28,10 +28,7 @@ static phandle __init olpc_dt_getsibling(phandle node)
>   	const void *args[] = { (void *)node };
>   	void *res[] = { &node };
>   
> -	if ((s32)node == -1)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	if (olpc_ofw("peer", args, res) || (s32)node == -1)
> +	if (((s32)node == -1) || olpc_ofw("peer", args, res))
>   		return 0;
>   
>   	return node;

'res' is { &node }

Could 'node' be modified by 'olpc_ofw(..., res)' and set to -1?

In other words, I'm not sure that the 2nd check is a redundant here.

Just my 2c,

CJ