linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Fix missing return check on ub960_rxport

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: <18412b95-7d34-4a80-940b-e5fc5bec3ec9@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:39:54 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Fix missing return check on
 ub960_rxport_read call

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:41:11AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed,  2 Oct 2024 17:53:29 +0100
> Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com> escreveu:
> 
> > The function ub960_rxport_read is being called and afterwards ret is
> > being checked for any failures, however ret is not being assigned to
> > the return of the function call. Fix this by assigning ret to the
> > return of the call which appears to be missing.
> > 
> > Fixes: afe267f2d368 ("media: i2c: add DS90UB960 driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
> 
> No Cc: stable. Please follow the submission rules for fixes as stated
> at:
> 	Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> 
> In summary, all patches containing fixes shall have a Cc stable. There 
> are rules there for the very few exceptions where a patch is not meant
> to be backported:
> 
>      Cc: <stable+noautosel@...nel.org> # reason goes here, and must be present
> 

I don't think this patch belongs in stable.  It's doesn't fix a real life bug,
it's just static checker stuff.  I also don't think we should forbid it from
going to stable if it's required as a dependency to backport a different patch.

regards,
dan carpenter