linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RDMA/siw: Fix exception handling in siw_accept

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230319141145.GE36557@unreal>
Date:   Sun, 19 Mar 2023 16:11:45 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, cocci@...ia.fr,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/siw: Fix exception handling in siw_accept_newconn()

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 20:30:12 +0100
> >>
> >> The label “error” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> >> the detail in the implementation of the function “siw_accept_newconn”
> >> that it was determined already that corresponding variables contained
> >> still null pointers.
> >>
> >> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
> >>
> >> 2. Delete two questionable checks.
> >>
> >> 3. Omit extra initialisations (for the variables “new_cep” and “new_s”)
> >>    which became unnecessary with this refactoring.
> >>
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5ccc468006fd65a504d4ee33743c7 ("rdma/siw: connection management")
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > Please read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and resubmit.
> > Your patch is not valid.
> 
> 
> What do you find improvable here?

Did you read the guide above?

1. The patch is malformed and doesn't appear in lore and patchworks.
2. "Date ..." in the middle of patch
3. Wrong Fixes line.
4. Patch contains too much and too different things at the same time.

Thanks

> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>