[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1478986636.4226.4.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:37:16 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
pravin shelar <pshelar@....org>,
Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genetlink: fix unsigned int comparison with less than
zero
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 09:11 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> > family->id is unsigned, so the less than zero check for
> > failure return from idr_alloc is never true and so the error exit
> > is never handled. Instead, assign err and check if this is less
> > than zero since this is a signed integer.
>
> Why family->id can't be just signed int? For me it should be.
I suppose it could be, since family IDs are allocated in a 16-bit range
anyway. But family IDs can also never actually be negative, so having
an unsigned int in the struct makes sense too.
I tend to think this patch is fine.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists