linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: convert rtw_pwr

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: <20220727124342.GR2316@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:43:42 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        paskripkin@...il.com, straube.linux@...il.com, martin@...ser.cx,
        abdun.nihaal@...il.com, philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: convert rtw_pwr_wakeup to correct
 error code semantics

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 08:33:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_pwrctrl.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_pwrctrl.c
> > index cf9020a73933..8b1c50668dfe 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_pwrctrl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_pwrctrl.c
> > @@ -381,24 +381,24 @@ int rtw_pwr_wakeup(struct adapter *padapter)
> >  	struct mlme_priv *pmlmepriv = &padapter->mlmepriv;
> >  	unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(3000);
> >  	unsigned long deny_time;
> > -	int ret = _SUCCESS;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> >  
> >  	while (pwrpriv->ps_processing && time_before(jiffies, timeout))
> >  		msleep(10);
> >  
> >  	/* I think this should be check in IPS, LPS, autosuspend functions... */
> >  	if (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, _FW_LINKED)) {
> > -		ret = _SUCCESS;
> > +		ret = 0;
> 
> Nit, you don't need to set this again, as you already set it above to 0.
> 

I would sort of prefer to drop the initialization and keep this one.

Otherwise it causes a Smatch warning about missing error codes.  It
*looks* buggy too, like it should be an error path.  Sometimes people
add a comment explaining why those are success paths and not error paths
which also works.

The Smatch check will no warn if there is a "ret = 0;" within 4(?) lines
of the goto because that's probably intentional.

regards,
dan carpenter