linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] staging: kpc2000: add missing spaces in core.c

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: <20190529181532.GM24680@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 21:15:32 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] staging: kpc2000: add missing spaces in core.c

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Simon Sandström wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:31:59AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:08:01PM +0200, Simon Sandström wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > -		ret = copy_to_user((void*)ioctl_param, (void*)&temp, sizeof(temp));
> > > +		ret = copy_to_user((void *)ioctl_param, (void *)&temp, sizeof(temp));
> > >  		if (ret)
> > >  			return -EFAULT;
> > 
> > This should really be written like so:
> > 
> > 		if (copy_to_user((void __user *)ioctl_param, &temp,
> > 				 sizeof(temp)))
> > 			return -EFAULT;
> > 
> > temp is really the wrong name.  "temp" is for temperatures.  "tmp" means
> > temporary.  But also "tmp" is wrong here because it's not a temporary
> > variable.  It's better to call it "regs" here.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> > 
> 
> I agree, but I don't think it fits within this patch. I can send a
> separate patch with this change.

You could send the other chunk as a separate patch, but I don't think it
makes sense to apply this chunk when really it just needs to be
re-written.

I normally don't complain too much about mechanical no-thought patches,
but in this case the function is very sub-par and should be re-written.

regards,
dan carpenter