linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: rtl8192u: replace ternary statement with if and assignment

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, 8 Apr 2022 09:31:33 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: rtl8192u: replace ternary statement with
 if and assignment

On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:14:51PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 08:57 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:15:14AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Replace ternary statement with an if statement followed by an assignment
> > > > to increase readability and make error handling more obvious.
> > > > Found with minmax coccinelle script.
> []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_wx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_wx.c
> []
> > > > @@ -470,7 +470,9 @@ int ieee80211_wx_get_encode(struct ieee80211_device *ieee,
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  	len = crypt->ops->get_key(keybuf, SCM_KEY_LEN, NULL, crypt->priv);
> > > > -	erq->length = (len >= 0 ? len : 0);
> > > > +	if (len < 0)
> > > > +		len = 0;
> > > > +	erq->length = len;
> > > 
> > > Maybe you could use max here?
> > 
> > Initially Rebecca did use max() but I NAKed it.  It's really not less
> > readable.  Better to handle the error explicitly.  Keep the error path
> > indented two tabs.  Separate from the success path.
> 
> A comment would be useful as it's not obvious it's an 'error' path.
> One has to read all 3 get_key functions to determine that.
> 

I'm so confused.  Negative error codes are the common case in the
kernel.  We don't need to comment it.

Obviously in an ideal world the get_key() functions would return -EINVAL
instead of -1...

regards,
dan carpenter