linux-kernel - Re: usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc

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: <a4738b42-b297-766c-56bf-94a91bc82767@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:15:39 +0800
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()

Hi Markus:

On 2020/4/10 16:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Hardware experiments show that the negative return value is not just "-EPROBE_DEFER".
> How much will this specific error code influence our understanding
> of the discussed software situation?
>
 From my superficial knowledge, I think we should not  think about it 
too complicated. The return value is just zero or negative, and for 
these negative return value, such as 
"-ENODEV"、"-ENXIO"、"-ENOENT"、“EPROBE_DEFER”，may be the same 
effect。But“-EPROBE_DEFER”has another  importment function: Driver 
requested deferred probing，which is used in cases where the dependency 
resource is not ready during the driver initialization process.
>>>> +        ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
>>> Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional operator
>>> (instead of leaving one case empty)?
>> I don't know what you mean of "instead of leaving one case empty".
> I suggest to reconsider also the proposed specification “… ? : …”.

What you mean is the way I'm written？

I have provided two ways of patching, both functional can be verified on 
hardware.

Thanks for your patience.

Tang Bin