linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: return appropriate error on failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH1kMwThQARAoxoxP__fv+f2ep5ndutnxUbQXPEyqn410oL1mA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 19:42:04 +0530
From:   Vihas Mak <makvihas@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: return appropriate error on failure

>> Please no, do not use ? : unless you have to.  Spell it out and use a
>> real if statement.

Okay. But I don't think it's required anymore, as Jiri pointed out in
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215205#c1

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:15 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 03:47:41AM +0530, Vihas Mak wrote:
> > when a user with CAP_SYS_ADMIN disabled calls ioctl (TIOCSSERIAL),
> > uart_set_info() returns 0 instead of -EPERM and the user remains unware
> > about what went wrong. Fix this.
> >
> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215205
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vihas Mak <makvihas@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > index 61e3dd022..c204bdecc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ static int uart_set_info(struct tty_struct *tty, struct tty_port *port,
> >               uport->fifosize = new_info->xmit_fifo_size;
> >
> >   check_and_exit:
> > -     retval = 0;
> > +     retval = retval < 0 ? retval : 0;
>
> Please no, do not use ? : unless you have to.  Spell it out and use a
> real if statement.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h



-- 
Thanks,
Vihas