linux-kernel - Re: HID: bpf: One function call less in call_hid_bpf_rdesc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2023122719-stunt-duration-9504@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:46:41 +0000
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
	David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cocci@...ia.fr
Subject: Re: HID: bpf: One function call less in call_hid_bpf_rdesc_fixup()
 after error detection

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 09:19:27AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> The kfree() function was called in one case by the
> >> call_hid_bpf_rdesc_fixup() function during error handling
> >> even if the passed data structure member contained a null pointer.
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >
> > It is totally OK to free a null pointer through kfree() and the ENOMEM
> > case is an unlikely case, so I don't think the patch is necessary.
> 
> Would you ever like to avoid redundant data processing a bit more?

Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot