linux-kernel - Re: [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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3ea5b370-8373-8ea7-9c2b-49218fcd0fd4@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:06:47 +0800
From:   Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][V2] ocfs2: remove deadcode on variable tmp_oh check



On 19/9/2 17:34, Colin King wrote:
> 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>

Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.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,
>