linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

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: <3894dab2-0660-999c-6f4c-4b5b9ff57773@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:44:49 +0800
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     minyard@....org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

Hi Corey:

On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？
> It's in my queue, so that's the plan.
>
>>>    I
>>> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check".
>> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？
> Correct.

Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied.

Then, I have some questions to ask you:

     I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there 
are another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is 
feasible, then I will submit the patch.

     Q1: About Format Problem

            In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, 
please check if the writing here is reasonable?

     Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq()

           1）In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of 
bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? （If your 
view is don't need to judge, the following will change.）

           2）According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the 
return value is negative,

                    if (!bt_bmc->irq)
                         return -ENODEV;

                so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is:

                      if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
                           return bt_bmc->irq;

                But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned 
to "0"，the easiest way is to delete the        403~404 line, handled 
directly by the function devm_request_irq().

         Q3：About dev_warm()

                 KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to 
dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses 
dev_info() to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 
should be redundant.

I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance.

Tang Bin