linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net/rose: remove redundant assignment to variable failed

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: <20200107161827.GO3911@kadam>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 19:18:27 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/rose: remove redundant assignment to variable failed

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 03:24:15PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The variable failed is being assigned a value that is never read, the
> following goto statement jumps to the end of the function and variable
> failed is not referenced at all.  Remove the redundant assignment.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  net/rose/rose_route.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c
> index c53307623236..5277631fa14c 100644
> --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c
> +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c
> @@ -696,7 +696,6 @@ struct rose_neigh *rose_get_neigh(rose_address *addr, unsigned char *cause,
>  				for (i = 0; i < node->count; i++) {
>  					if (!rose_ftimer_running(node->neighbour[i])) {
>  						res = node->neighbour[i];
> -						failed = 0;
>  						goto out;
>  					}
>  					failed = 1;

I don't know the code, but I would have expected the out label to come
earlier:


        }
        if (!route_frame) { /* connect request */
                for (node = rose_node_list; node != NULL; node = node->next) {
                        if (rosecmpm(addr, &node->address, node->mask) == 0) {
                                for (i = 0; i < node->count; i++) {
                                        if (!rose_ftimer_running(node->neighbour[i])) {
                                                res = node->neighbour[i];
                                                failed = 0;
                                                goto out;
                                        }
                                        failed = 1;
                                }
                        }
                }
        }

<--------***********  I would have expected it to be right here.
        if (failed) {
                *cause      = ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER;
                *diagnostic = 0;
        } else {
                *cause      = ROSE_NOT_OBTAINABLE;
                *diagnostic = 0;
        }

out:
        if (!route_frame) spin_unlock_bh(&rose_node_list_lock);
        return res;

regards,
dan carpenter