linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xhci: Remove unused value len from xhci_unmap_temp

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: <YEOs5w8AYutM27/u@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 Mar 2021 17:25:11 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     zhangkun4jr@....com
Cc:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zhang Kun <zhangkun@...rlc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xhci: Remove unused value len from xhci_unmap_temp_buf

On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 08:06:44PM +0800, zhangkun4jr@....com wrote:
> From: Zhang Kun <zhangkun@...rlc.com>
> 
> The value assigned to len by sg_pcopy_from_buffer() never used for
> anything, so remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Kun <zhangkun@...rlc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> index bd27bd670104..6ebda89d476c 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> @@ -1335,7 +1335,6 @@ static bool xhci_urb_temp_buffer_required(struct usb_hcd *hcd,
>  
>  static void xhci_unmap_temp_buf(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
>  {
> -	unsigned int len;
>  	unsigned int buf_len;
>  	enum dma_data_direction dir;
>  
> @@ -1351,7 +1350,7 @@ static void xhci_unmap_temp_buf(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
>  				 dir);
>  
>  	if (usb_urb_dir_in(urb))
> -		len = sg_pcopy_from_buffer(urb->sg, urb->num_sgs,
> +		sg_pcopy_from_buffer(urb->sg, urb->num_sgs,
>  					   urb->transfer_buffer,
>  					   buf_len,
>  					   0);

SHouldn't this be checked instead of ignored?

thanks,

greg k-h