linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: use generic kernel error codes

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]

Date:   Tue, 04 May 2021 18:52:29 +0000
From:   Bryan Brattlof <hello@...anbrattlof.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: use generic kernel error codes

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 07:56:35PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 05:45:37PM +0000, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
>> Sorry for the spam Greg I dropped the mailing lists from the first
>> email.  :(
>>
>> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> >On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:07:48PM +0000, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> @@ -139,12 +139,11 @@ static u32 sdio_init(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
>> >>  	psdio_data->tx_block_mode = 1;
>> >>  	psdio_data->rx_block_mode = 1;
>> >>
>> >> +	return err;
>> >> +
>> >>  release:
>> >>  	sdio_release_host(func);
>> >> -
>> >> -	if (err)
>> >> -		return _FAIL;
>> >> -	return _SUCCESS;
>> >> +	return err;
>> >>  }
>> >
>> >You just changed the logic here, are you SURE that was ok to do?
>> >
>>
>> I can't say my brain didn't bleed a little trying to keep this straight
>> in my head while walking through this. (For what ever reason my brain
>> sees negative integers as False) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>> Both the sdio_enable_func() and sdio_set_block_size() will return a
>> negative integer if they fail, which we evaluate as True, allowing us to
>> jump to release, free the card and propagate the error backwards.
>>
>> If everything worked, we'll skip all the jumps until we get to the first
>> 'return err;' statement, returning our 0 for success.
>>
>> Inside sdio_dvobj_init() if we see 'anything below 0' (This probably
>> should be changed to 'anything True') we jump to free_dvobj where we
>> free the dvobj and return NULL
>>
>> If I've looked at this long enough I don't thing I changed the logic.
>>
>> Hopefully. :)
>
>So you need to document this really well, showing that the function
>whose error you changed, is being evaluated here now differently too.
>

Sounds good. Ill update the commit log

>
>> >>  static void sdio_deinit(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
>> >> @@ -186,7 +185,7 @@ static struct dvobj_priv *sdio_dvobj_init(struct sdio_func *func)
>> >>  	psdio = &dvobj->intf_data;
>> >>  	psdio->func = func;
>> >>
>> >> -	if (sdio_init(dvobj) != _SUCCESS)
>> >> +	if (sdio_init(dvobj) < 0)
>> >>  		goto free_dvobj;
>> >>
>> >>  	rtw_reset_continual_io_error(dvobj);
>> >>
>> >> base-commit: 9ccce092fc64d19504fa54de4fd659e279cc92e7
>> >> --
>> >> git-series 0.9.1
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >And that's all to remove the need for these crazy error values?  If so,
>> >why not also remove the #defines for them as well?
>> >
>>
>> I might have over sold this patch. :)
>>
>> There are quite a few functions like this still here that need to be
>> converted before we can get rid of the _SUCCESS and _FAIL definitions.
>>
>> Would it be better if I bundled these up in a series?
>
>Do it one function "call-chain" at a time, and yes, a series would be
>great.
>

Thanks Greg! I'll bundle this up into a series.

--
~Bryan

>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h