linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] efi/dev-path-parser: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to

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:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:06:34 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...ica.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Elie Morisse <syniurge@...il.com>,
        Nehal Shah <nehal-bakulchandra.shah@....com>,
        Shyam Sundar S K <shyam-sundar.s-k@....com>,
        Khalil Blaiech <kblaiech@...dia.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] efi/dev-path-parser: Refactor _UID handling to
 use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:20:47AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 18:57, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> >         for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, hid, NULL, -1) {
> > -               if (adev->pnp.unique_id && !strcmp(adev->pnp.unique_id, uid))
> > +               ret = acpi_dev_uid_to_integer(adev, &uid);
> > +               if (ret == -ENODATA && node->acpi.uid == 0)
> >                         break;
> > -               if (!adev->pnp.unique_id && node->acpi.uid == 0)
> > +               if (ret == 0 && node->acpi.uid == uid)
> 
> Is it necessary to reorder the conditions here? I.e., why not

Code-wise there should be not much difference which does not affect the flow,
I think I moved it to be closer to the pattern "let's handle errors first",
but in this case I'm fine with your proposal.

> > +               ret = acpi_dev_uid_to_integer(adev, &uid);
> > +               if (ret == 0 && node->acpi.uid == uid)
> >                         break;
> > +               if (ret == -ENODATA && node->acpi.uid == 0)
> >                         break;
> 
> ?
> 
> With that fixed,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>

Thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko