linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: fix an error code in nand_setup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210417143124.6a79c71c@xps13>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:31:24 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: fix an error code in
 nand_setup_interface()

Hi Dan,

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote on Sat, 17 Apr 2021
13:24:26 +0300:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:00:40PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote on Wed, 14 Apr 2021
> > 08:56:33 +0300:
> >   
> > > We should return an error code if the timing mode is not acknowledged
> > > by the NAND chip.  
> > 
> > This truly is questionable (and I am not yet decided whether the answer
> > should be yes or no).
> > 
> > Returning an error here would produce the entire boot sequence to fail,
> > even though the NAND chip would work in mode 0.
> > 
> > Not returning an error would print the below warning (so the
> > user/developer is warned) and continue the boot with the slowest
> > timing interface.
> > 
> > Honestly I would be more in favor of letting things as they are
> > because I don't think this may be considered as a buggy situation, but I
> > am open to discussion.
> >   
> 
> If we decided that the original code is correct then one way to silence
> the warning would be to do:
> 
> 	if (tmode_param[0] != chip->best_interface_config->timings.mode) {
> 		pr_warn("timing mode %d not acknowledged by the NAND chip\n",
>  			chip->best_interface_config->timings.mode);
> 		ret = 0;
> 		goto err_reset_chip;
> 	}
> 
> Setting "ret = 0;" right before the goto makes the code look more
> intentional to human readers as well.

Absolutely right. Let's got for it then.

Cheers,
Miquèl