linux-kernel - [PATCH][V2] ocfs2: remove deadcode on variable tmp

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon,  2 Sep 2019 10:34:34 +0100
From:   Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH][V2] ocfs2: remove deadcode on variable tmp_oh check

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>

At the end of ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker tmp_oh is true because an
earlier check on tmp_oh being false returns out of the function.
Since tmp_oh is true, the function will always return 1 so remove
the redundant check and return of 0.

Also update description in comment, return -EINVAL and not -1.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
---

V2: Fix typo of function name in description.
    Update description in comment as noted by Joseph Qi

---
 fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
index ad594fef2ab0..640eee2bb903 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
@@ -2626,7 +2626,8 @@ void ocfs2_inode_unlock(struct inode *inode,
  *
  * return < 0 on error, return == 0 if there's no lock holder on the stack
  * before this call, return == 1 if this call would be a recursive locking.
- * return == -1 if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is forbidden.
+ * return == -EINVAL if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is
+ * forbidden.
  *
  * When taking lock levels into account,we face some different situations.
  *
@@ -2712,7 +2713,7 @@ int ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
 			return status;
 		}
 	}
-	return tmp_oh ? 1 : 0;
+	return 1;
 }
 
 void ocfs2_inode_unlock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
-- 
2.20.1