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]
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:33:06 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     cgel.zte@...il.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] USB: serial: ftdi_sio: remove the unneeded
 result variable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:17:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:05:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:38:27PM +0000, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> > > From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
> > > 
> > > Return the value usb_control_msg() directly instead of storing
> > > it in another redundant variable.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
> 
> > > -       rv = usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > > -                           usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > > -                           value, index,
> > > -                           NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> > > -       return rv;
> > > +       return usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > > +                              usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > > +                              value, index,
> > > +                              NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> > >  }
> > 
> > That's really not the correct use of the return value of
> > usb_control_msg().  Can you fix this up to properly handle the return
> > value, or better yet, use the usb_control_msg_send() call?
> 
> It is actually correct since the buffer length is zero here (i.e. it
> returns a negative errno or 0).

Yeah, that's a hack :)

> But I'm also ignoring patches from this email address as it is used by
> multiple users, and of which none so far has replied to feedback (as if
> it's all automated).

Great, that's the correct thing to do here, thanks.

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ