linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fpga: altera-pr-ip: fix unsigned comparison with less than zero

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: <736b71d7-1e07-f5c3-d8ad-c3e1b1595d5c@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:47:02 +0200
From:   Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
To:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fpga: altera-pr-ip: fix unsigned comparison with less
 than zero

On 2022-04-20 06:24, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> Marco,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 08:53:49PM +0200, Marco Pagani wrote:
>> Fix the "comparison with less than zero" warning reported by
>> cppcheck for the unsigned (size_t) parameter "count" of the
>> "alt_pr_fpga_write()" function.
>>
> Should this have a Reported-by: tag?

I found this problem using the "cppcheck" tool, as reported in the
commit log. I did not find any previous report of this. Am I missing
something?

>> Signed-off-by: Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c b/drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c
>> index be0667968d33..2ff3d8e46a0c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c
>> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int alt_pr_fpga_write(struct fpga_manager *mgr, const char *buf,
>>  	u32 *buffer_32 = (u32 *)buf;
>>  	size_t i = 0;
>>  
>> -	if (count <= 0)
>> +	if (count == 0)
>>  		return -EINVAL;
> 
> if (!count)
> 	return -EINVAL?

Ok, I'll change that in v2.

>>  
>>  	/* Write out the complete 32-bit chunks */
>> -- 
>> 2.35.1
> 
> Cheers,
> Moritz
>>
> 

Cheers,
Marco