[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877dktuvmz.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:45:40 +0300
From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Dan Carpenter' <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
"Chia-Wei, Wang" <chiawei_wang@...eedtech.com>,
Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...el.com>,
"John Wang" <wangzhiqiang.bj@...edance.com>,
Brad Bishop <bradleyb@...ziesquirrel.com>,
Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>,
"Benjamin Fair" <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Robert Lippert <rlippert@...gle.com>,
"linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: aspeed: fix a ternary sign expansion bug
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> writes:
> From: Dan Carpenter
>> Sent: 22 April 2021 10:12
>>
>> The intent here was to return negative error codes but it actually
>> returns positive values. The problem is that type promotion with
>> ternary operations is quite complicated.
>>
>> "ret" is an int. "copied" is a u32. And the snoop_file_read() function
>> returns long. What happens is that "ret" is cast to u32 and becomes
>> positive then it's cast to long and it's still positive.
>>
>> Fix this by removing the ternary so that "ret" is type promoted directly
>> to long.
>>
>> Fixes: 3772e5da4454 ("drivers/misc: Aspeed LPC snoop output using misc chardev")
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> index 210455efb321..eceeaf8dfbeb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> @@ -94,8 +94,10 @@ static ssize_t snoop_file_read(struct file *file, char __user *buffer,
>> return -EINTR;
>> }
>> ret = kfifo_to_user(&chan->fifo, buffer, count, &copied);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - return ret ? ret : copied;
>> + return copied;
>
> I wonder if changing it to:
> return ret ? ret + 0L : copied;
>
> Might make people think in the future and not convert it back
> as an 'optimisation'.
It rather made me think: "what the heck is going on here?!"
Shouldn't it better be:
return ret ? ret : (long)copied;
or even:
return ret ?: (long)copied;
?
-- Sergey Organov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists