linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinnelle: Remove ptr

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: <20201215084823.towbaqay5tgdh7dw@gilmour>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:48:23 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
        Gilles.Muller@...6.fr, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        nicolas.palix@...g.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julia.Lawall@...6.fr, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinnelle: Remove ptr_ret script

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:29:54AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:06:56AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > 
> > > The ptr_ret script script addresses a number of situations where we end up
> > > testing an error pointer, and if it's an error returning it, or return 0
> > > otherwise to transform it into a PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO call.
> > >
> > > So it will convert a block like this:
> > >
> > > if (IS_ERR(err))
> > >     return PTR_ERR(err);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > into
> > >
> > > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(err);
> > >
> > > While this is technically correct, it has a number of drawbacks. First, it
> > > merges the error and success path, which will make it harder for a reviewer
> > > or reader to grasp.
> > >
> > > It's also more difficult to extend if we were to add some code between the
> > > error check and the function return, making the author essentially revert
> > > that patch before adding new lines, while it would have been a trivial
> > > addition otherwise for the rewiever.
> > >
> > > Therefore, since that script is only about cosmetic in the first place,
> > > let's remove it since it's not worth it.
> > >
> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
> > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
> 
> Convincing patch description, good catch!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>

It looks like this patch was never applied, whose tree should it go
through?

Thanks!
Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)