linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Bluetooth: fix recv

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: <a637b8ad-6a2a-4408-9700-1851d25197dc@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:17:51 +0100
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To:     Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
Cc:     Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkumar.karwar@....com>,
        Neeraj Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>,
        Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Bluetooth: fix recv_buf() return value

Hi,

On 27. 11. 23, 20:23, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:14:05PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
>> From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
>>
>> Serdev recv_buf() callback is supposed to return the amount of bytes
>> consumed, therefore an int in between 0 and count.
> 
> I have also a patch ready to convert the return value of serdev
> recv_buf() from int to size_t.
> 
> I would be inclined to wait for this series to go though first, given
> that these are fixes, while the change from int to size_t is just a
> cleanup to prevent future mistakes. Do you agree of would you do it
> differently?

Fine by me either way. You can include it in this series at the end. 
Fixes can be picked up by stable too, the rest would go to mainline only.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs