linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] usb: isp1760: Fix meaningless check in isp1763

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]

Date:   Fri, 04 Jun 2021 09:22:21 +0100
From:   "Rui Miguel Silva" <rui.silva@...aro.org>
To:     "tongtiangen" <tongtiangen@...wei.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] usb: isp1760: Fix meaningless check in
 isp1763_run()

Hi Tiangen,
On Fri Jun 4, 2021 at 3:09 AM WEST, tongtiangen wrote:
> On 2021/6/3 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 06:03:11PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> >> There's a meaningless check in isp1763_run. According to the
> >> similar implement in isp1760_run, the proper check should remove
> >> retval = 0;
> >>
> >> Fixes: 60d789f3bfbb ("usb: isp1760: add support for isp1763")
> >> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c | 1 -
> >>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c
> >> index 016a54ea76f4..27168b4a4ef2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c
> >> @@ -1648,7 +1648,6 @@ static int isp1763_run(struct usb_hcd *hcd)
> >>   	down_write(&ehci_cf_port_reset_rwsem);
> >>   	retval = isp1760_hcd_set_and_wait(hcd, FLAG_CF, 250 * 1000);
> >>   	up_write(&ehci_cf_port_reset_rwsem);
> >> -	retval = 0;
> >>   	if (retval)
> >>   		return retval;
> >>   
> >> -- 
> >> 2.18.0.huawei.25
> >>
> > Did you test this change to verify that the driver still works properly?
> > You are now checking something that never was checked before...

Thanks Greg for asking the right question here :)

> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> > .
> Sorry,  this fix was not send to Rui.

Yeah, I did not get the original, no. I will need to add entries in
MAINTAINERS for this driver to be easier for others.

>  From the point of view of code logic, there should be a problem here.

It looks like. Only if we fail to setup the Configure Flag,
something that it's not really expected to fail.

>  I don't have the actual hardware to verify whether it works
>  properly. Rui may know if the patch affects the original workflow.

Thanks for the patch and I will test this and get back to you.

------
Cheers,
     Rui