linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] tty: xilinx_uartps: Make the timeout unsigned

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]

Message-ID: <YnQ5fh6pcPWmveE8@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 22:54:22 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@...inx.com>
Cc:     linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, michal.simek@...inx.com,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, git@...inx.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] tty: xilinx_uartps: Make the timeout unsigned

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote:
> The timeout cannot be negative make it unsigned.
> Also the same for the trigger level.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: Event incompatible_param.

What does this mean?

> Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@...inx.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
> index bf0415f0a194..289d70914956 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
> @@ -34,12 +34,12 @@
>  #define TX_TIMEOUT		500000
>  
>  /* Rx Trigger level */
> -static int rx_trigger_level = 56;
> +static uint rx_trigger_level = 56;
>  module_param(rx_trigger_level, uint, 0444);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(rx_trigger_level, "Rx trigger level, 1-63 bytes");
>  
>  /* Rx Timeout */
> -static int rx_timeout = 10;
> +static uint rx_timeout = 10;
>  module_param(rx_timeout, uint, 0444);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(rx_timeout, "Rx timeout, 1-255");

As this is bounded (right?) why is this an issue?

Shouldn't it be a "byte" instead?

thanks,

greg k-h