netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2: remove deadcode in bnx2_init

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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 22:57:10 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@...il.com>
Cc:     Rasesh Mody <rmody@...vell.com>, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2: remove deadcode in bnx2_init_cpus()

On Thu,  9 Mar 2023 20:42:31 +0300 Maxim Korotkov wrote:
> The load_cpu_fw function has no error return code
> and always returns zero. Checking the value returned by
> this function does not make sense.
> As a result, bnx2_init_cpus() will also return only zero
> Therefore, it will be safe to change the type of functions
> to void and remove checking

True, but you need to tell the reader why you're making the change.
One of the impossible-to-hit error handling paths is missing unwind
or some such?