linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: r8188eu: don't set

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:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:12:17 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: r8188eu: don't set _SUCCESS again

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:39:18PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Dan Carpenter (dan.carpenter@...cle.com):
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 05:15:51PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > > ret is initialized to _SUCCESS, there's no need to set it again.
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
> 
> > I liked the original code better.  Otherwise you wonder, is it
> > intentional to return success on this path. 
> 
> You're right. The original code is easier to understand. It's not
> obvious that this check should return _SUCCESS and the remaining ones
> return _FAIL.
> 
> Greg, could you drop this patch or should I resend the series without
> this patch?

Martin, if Greg's already applied this patch then just leave it as-is.

We're going to have to go through and remove all the _SUCCESS/_FAIL
stuff anyway.  This problem will be cleaned up in end.  No need to worry
about it.

regards,
dan carpenter