linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/17] tty: srmcons: use 'count' directly in srmcons_do

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]

Message-ID: <4f0db52-6430-9122-1ecc-86e337644944@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] tty: srmcons: use 'count' directly in
 srmcons_do_write()

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:

> Similarly to 'buf' in the previous patch, there is no need to have a
> separate counter ('remaining') in srmcons_do_write(). 'count' can be
> used directly which simplifies the code a bit.
> 
> Note that the type of the current count ('c') is changed from 'long' to
> 'size_t' so that:
> 1) it is prepared for the upcoming change of 'count's type, and
> 2) is unsigned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org>
> Cc: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>
> Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
> Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
> Cc: linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c
> index b68c5af083cd..8025e2a882ed 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c
> +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c
> @@ -92,24 +92,24 @@ static int
>  srmcons_do_write(struct tty_port *port, const char *buf, int count)
>  {
>  	static char str_cr[1] = "\r";
> -	long c, remaining = count;
> +	size_t c;
>  	srmcons_result result;
>  	int need_cr;
>  
> -	while (remaining > 0) {
> +	while (count > 0) {
>  		need_cr = 0;
>  		/* 
>  		 * Break it up into reasonable size chunks to allow a chance
>  		 * for input to get in
>  		 */
> -		for (c = 0; c < min_t(long, 128L, remaining) && !need_cr; c++)
> +		for (c = 0; c < min_t(size_t, 128U, count) && !need_cr; c++)
>  			if (buf[c] == '\n')
>  				need_cr = 1;
>  		
>  		while (c > 0) {
>  			result.as_long = callback_puts(0, buf, c);
>  			c -= result.bits.c;
> -			remaining -= result.bits.c;
> +			count -= result.bits.c;
>  			buf += result.bits.c;
>  
>  			/*
> 

The patches in the series are in pretty odd order and it was not told 
anywhere here that the return value is unused by the callers. I'd just 
reorder the patches.

-- 
 i.