linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] tools/bootconfig: Fix to return 0 if succeeded to show the bootconfig

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

Message-Id: <20200616165337.f73e9b787098cc681b21c4b4@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:53:37 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tools/bootconfig: Fix to return 0 if succeeded to
 show the bootconfig

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:14:42 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:23:35 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Fix bootconfig to return 0 if succeeded to show the bootconfig
> > in initrd. Without this fix, "bootconfig INITRD" command
> > returns !0 even if the command succeeded to show the bootconfig.
> > 
> > Fixes: 950313ebf79c ("tools: bootconfig: Add bootconfig command")
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/bootconfig/main.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/bootconfig/main.c b/tools/bootconfig/main.c
> > index 21896a6675fd..ff2cc9520e10 100644
> > --- a/tools/bootconfig/main.c
> > +++ b/tools/bootconfig/main.c
> > @@ -209,8 +209,10 @@ int show_xbc(const char *path)
> >  	ret = load_xbc_from_initrd(fd, &buf);
> >  	if (ret < 0)
> >  		pr_err("Failed to load a boot config from initrd: %d\n", ret);
> > -	else
> > +	else {
> >  		xbc_show_compact_tree();
> > +		ret = 0;
> > +	}
> 
> Usually for the above, I think goto is cleaner. As it is strange to
> have a successful case as the "else" condition. Not to mention, if you
> add brackets for one side of the else, it is usually recommended to add
> them for the other side.
> 
> But in this case I think it would read better to have:
> 
> 
> 	if (ret < 0) {
> 		pr_err(...);
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 	xbc_show_compact_tree();
> 	ret = 0;
> out:

Agreed. OK, I'll update it.

Thank you!

> 	
> >  
> >  	close(fd);
> >  	free(buf);
> 
> -- Steve


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>