netdev - Re: [net-next 08/12] i40e: Missing response checks in driver when starting/stopping FW LLDP

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: <20190614.090140.1221151129715562239.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Cc:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, piotr.marczak@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        andrewx.bowers@...el.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 08/12] i40e: Missing response checks in driver when
 starting/stopping FW LLDP

From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:42:52 +0300

> On 13.06.2019 21:53, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> 
>> + "Device configuration forbids SW from starting the LLDP agent.\n");
>> +					return (-EINVAL);
> 
>    () not needed. None was used above, so why have them here?
 ...
>> +						 i40e_aq_str(&pf->hw,
>> +							     adq_err));
>> +					return (-EINVAL);
> 
>    Neither they are needed here...

Yeah these need to be fixed.