linux-kernel - Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 09:24:28 +0100
From:   Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about
 find_tt() not returning error

Hi Lukas,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:37 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > > > And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this
> > > > > finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just
> > > > > look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid.
> > > >
<snip>
> >
> > Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues?  If there
> > are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool?  :)
> >
>
> Completely agree. That is why I was against adding comments here and
> elsewhere just to have the "good feeling of doing something" after the
> tool reported a warning and we spend some time understanding the code to
> conclude that we now understand the code better than the tool.

I think you are missing the point here. I sent the comment not because
of any tool, I sent it because the code there was not that simple like
other drivers and at a first glance its not apparent why there are no
error checks. And, afaik, the only purpose of comments is to make the
source code easier to understand.


-- 
Regards
Sudip