linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: core: Initialize returned status in spi

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]

Message-Id: <164995273428.1502382.15341436161467838466.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:12:14 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: core: Initialize returned status in spi_setup

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:40:40 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> The previous commit that made bits-per-word validation conditional
> results in leaving no unconditional affectation of the status variable.
> 
> Since the variable is returned at the end of the function, initialize
> it to avoid returning an undefined value.
> 
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: core: Initialize returned status in spi_setup
      commit: 73f93db5c49b9f52c902e5dc6c750bf9832e0450

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark