linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: fix error checking in wdt

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: <604731a2-c9d0-4326-8304-4a8c7f416bd4@web.de>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 15:50:33 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Alexandr Sapozhnikov <alsp705@...il.com>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: fix error checking in wdt_disable()

> The i2c_transfer() function may return an error.
> Ignoring errors returned by functions is bad practice.

See also:
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/252.html

…
> If the second function call succeeds, data corruption will occur.

Should the function return values be checked for both passed messages?

* Would a corresponding imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.17#n94

* How do you think about to add any tags (like “Fixes” and “Cc”) accordingly?

Regards,
Markus