linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb: ehci: Prevent possible modulo by 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:22:08 +0600
From:   Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb: ehci: Prevent possible modulo by zero

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:56 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

>

> Odd tag format, is that in the documentation?

You are right. I should have used "Addresses-coverity".

> You only ever use likely/unlikely if you can document how it matters
> with a benchmark or other way to notice the difference.  Otherwise let
> the compiler and the CPU do their magic, they know how to do this better
> than us.

Thanks for the important information.
>
> > +             return -1;

I noticed. The function returns -1 on failure, everywhere so I used that.
I guess making them return correct error numbers using macros would
be a patch.
>
> A real error number should be returned here if this was valid.
>
> But as Alan said, coverity is often wrong, and unless you can prove
> otherwise, this patch isn't valid.

Got you.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

  -- Khalid Masum