linux-kernel - Re: [patch 08/13] ptp: Split out PTP_PIN

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: <87zfdxmf7h.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:39:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 08/13] ptp: Split out PTP_PIN_GETFUNC ioctl code

On Tue, Jun 24 2025 at 11:22, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 6/20/25 3:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Continue the ptp_ioctl() cleanup by splitting out the PTP_PIN_GETFUNC ioctl
>> code into a helper function. Convert to lock guard while at it.
>> 
>> No functional change intended.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> ---
>>  drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>> 
>> --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
>> @@ -396,6 +396,28 @@ static long ptp_sys_offset(struct ptp_cl
>>  	return copy_to_user(arg, sysoff, sizeof(*sysoff)) ? -EFAULT : 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static long ptp_pin_getfunc(struct ptp_clock *ptp, unsigned int cmd, void __user *arg)
>> +{
>> +	struct ptp_clock_info *ops = ptp->info;
>> +	struct ptp_pin_desc pd;
>> +
>> +	if (copy_from_user(&pd, arg, sizeof(pd)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> +	if (cmd == PTP_PIN_GETFUNC2 && !mem_is_zero(pd.rsv, sizeof(pd.rsv)))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	else
>> +		memset(pd.rsv, 0, sizeof(pd.rsv));
>
> Minor nit: I personally find the 'else' statement after return
> counter-intuitive and dropping it would save an additional LoC.

Of course ...