linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libata-core: Simplies if condition

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]

Message-ID: <b26499be-e8e1-5812-a134-dbeb58118124@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 07:53:20 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To:     Yahu Gao <yahu.gao@...look.com>
Cc:     linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yahu Gao <gaoyh12@...ovo.com>, Jiwei Sun <sunjw10@...ovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libata-core: Simplies if condition

On 4/28/23 10:53, Yahu Gao wrote:
> ping ...
> 
> 在 2023/4/22 20:14, Yahu Gao 写道:
>> From: Yahu Gao <gaoyh12@...ovo.com>
>>
>> Replace conditions of avoid issuing [P]IDENTIFY to PMP.

Please be a little more descriptive. Something like:

Simplify the condition used in ata_dev_revalidate() to not issue identify
commands to port multiplier devices.

would be better.

>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jiwei Sun <sunjw10@...ovo.com>

Where does this review come from ? I have never seen an email for it. I cannot
accept this tag without seeing the email for it.

>> Signed-off-by: Yahu Gao <gaoyh12@...ovo.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 14c17c3bda4e..53f65d751189 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -3802,11 +3802,7 @@ int ata_dev_revalidate(struct ata_device *dev, unsigned int new_class,
>>   		return -ENODEV;
>>   
>>   	/* fail early if !ATA && !ATAPI to avoid issuing [P]IDENTIFY to PMP */
>> -	if (ata_class_enabled(new_class) &&

Please keep the above "ata_class_enabled(new_class) &&" condition:

	if (ata_class_enabled(new_class) && new_class == ATA_DEV_PMP) {

While keeping this condition is logically not necessary, having it makes the
code easier to understand.

>> -	    new_class != ATA_DEV_ATA &&
>> -	    new_class != ATA_DEV_ATAPI &&
>> -	    new_class != ATA_DEV_ZAC &&
>> -	    new_class != ATA_DEV_SEMB) {
>> +	if (new_class == ATA_DEV_PMP) {
>>   		ata_dev_info(dev, "class mismatch %u != %u\n",
>>   			     dev->class, new_class);
>>   		rc = -ENODEV;