linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: cleanup unused variables

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:   Sun, 29 Oct 2023 14:26:22 +0200
From:   José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@...hound.fi>
To:     seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: cleanup unused variables

On 2023-10-29 11:38, José Pekkarinen wrote:
> Reported by coccinelle, the following patch will remove some
> redundant variables. This patch will address the following
> warnings:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:1315:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return
> "X86EMUL_CONTINUE" on line 1330
> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:4557:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return
> "X86EMUL_CONTINUE" on line 4591
> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:1180:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return
> "X86EMUL_CONTINUE" on line 1202
> 
> Signed-off-by: José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@...hound.fi>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 17 ++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> index 2673cd5c46cb..c4bb03a88dfe 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> @@ -1177,7 +1177,6 @@ static int decode_modrm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt 
> *ctxt,
>  {
>  	u8 sib;
>  	int index_reg, base_reg, scale;
> -	int rc = X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  	ulong modrm_ea = 0;
> 
>  	ctxt->modrm_reg = ((ctxt->rex_prefix << 1) & 8); /* REX.R */
> @@ -1199,16 +1198,16 @@ static int decode_modrm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt 
> *ctxt,
>  			op->bytes = 16;
>  			op->addr.xmm = ctxt->modrm_rm;
>  			kvm_read_sse_reg(ctxt->modrm_rm, &op->vec_val);
> -			return rc;
> +			return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  		}
>  		if (ctxt->d & Mmx) {
>  			op->type = OP_MM;
>  			op->bytes = 8;
>  			op->addr.mm = ctxt->modrm_rm & 7;
> -			return rc;
> +			return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  		}
>  		fetch_register_operand(op);
> -		return rc;
> +		return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  	}
> 
>  	op->type = OP_MEM;
> @@ -1306,14 +1305,12 @@ static int decode_modrm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt 
> *ctxt,
>  		ctxt->memop.addr.mem.ea = (u32)ctxt->memop.addr.mem.ea;
> 
>  done:
> -	return rc;
> +	return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  }
> 
>  static int decode_abs(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
>  		      struct operand *op)
>  {
> -	int rc = X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> -
>  	op->type = OP_MEM;
>  	switch (ctxt->ad_bytes) {
>  	case 2:
> @@ -1327,7 +1324,7 @@ static int decode_abs(struct x86_emulate_ctxt 
> *ctxt,
>  		break;
>  	}
>  done:
> -	return rc;
> +	return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  }
> 
>  static void fetch_bit_operand(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
> @@ -4554,8 +4551,6 @@ static unsigned imm_size(struct x86_emulate_ctxt 
> *ctxt)
>  static int decode_imm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, struct operand 
> *op,
>  		      unsigned size, bool sign_extension)
>  {
> -	int rc = X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> -
>  	op->type = OP_IMM;
>  	op->bytes = size;
>  	op->addr.mem.ea = ctxt->_eip;
> @@ -4588,7 +4583,7 @@ static int decode_imm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt
> *ctxt, struct operand *op,
>  		}
>  	}
>  done:
> -	return rc;
> +	return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>  }
> 
>  static int decode_operand(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, struct 
> operand *op,

     Sorry, this is a false positive, please skip it.

     José.