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  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]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:22:04 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        朱灿灿 <zhucancan@...o.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ASoC: soc-pcm: Fix uninitialised return value in
 variable ret

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:37:36PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 11/01/2021 16:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:35:46PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >>
> >> Currently when attempting to start the BE fails because the
> >> FE is not started the error return variable ret is not initialized
> >> and garbage is returned.  Fix this by setting it to 0 so the
> > 
> > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
> > 
> 
> Current ASoC tree now has two commits:
> 
> commit 4eeed5f40354735c4e68e71904db528ed19c9cbb
> Author: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
> Date:   Sat Jan 9 09:15:01 2021 +0530
> 
>     ASoC: soc-pcm: return correct -ERRNO in failure path
> 
> commit e91b65b36fde0690f1c694f17dd1b549295464a7
> Author: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 11 12:50:21 2021 +0300
> 
>     ASoC: soc-pcm: Fix an uninitialized error code
> 
> ..both set ret to non-zero, which I believe will throw a subsequent
> warning messagethat's not strictly related.

My patch restored the original behavior.  And I think that errors should
return error codes.  What you're saying is basically "Returning an error
is a bug because it will trigger an error message in the caller".  So
then we have to have a debate about printks as a layering violation.

I don't like error messages generally, because I think they make the
code messy.  A lot of people put error messages for impossible things.
Or if a kmalloc() fails or whatever.  There are too many error messages
which people add in an auto-pilot way without considering whether it's
necessary.

But some people think, and maybe they're correct, that it's best if
every function in the call tree prints a message.  That way you can
trace the error path easily.

regards,
dan carpenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists