netdev - Re: [PATCH] ceph/decode: Remove unnecessary ‘0’ values from ret

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58b1e635-f31a-8c76-b704-a707bd11d460@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 06:59:54 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Li kunyu <kunyu@...china.com>, idryomov@...il.com, xiubli@...hat.com,
 jlayton@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ceph/decode: Remove unnecessary ‘0’ values from ret

Le 01/09/2023 à 05:40, Li kunyu a écrit :
> ret is assigned first, so it does not need to initialize the
> assignment.
> Bad is not used and can be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li kunyu <kunyu@...china.com>
> ---
>   net/ceph/decode.c | 5 ++---
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ceph/decode.c b/net/ceph/decode.c
> index bc109a1a4616..9f5f095d8235 100644
> --- a/net/ceph/decode.c
> +++ b/net/ceph/decode.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int
>   ceph_decode_entity_addr_legacy(void **p, void *end,
>   			       struct ceph_entity_addr *addr)
>   {
> -	int ret = -EINVAL;
> +	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	/* Skip rest of type field */
>   	ceph_decode_skip_n(p, end, 3, bad);
> @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ ceph_decode_entity_addr_legacy(void **p, void *end,
>   			      sizeof(addr->in_addr), bad);
>   	addr->in_addr.ss_family =
>   			be16_to_cpu((__force __be16)addr->in_addr.ss_family);
> -	ret = 0;
> -bad:
> +
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   

This patch is wrong.
Look how the ceph_decode_skip_n() macro, for example, is expended.
You'll see that 'bad' is needed.

I think that your patch was not compile tested.

Please do not send patch that are not at least compile tested. Even when 
it looks obvious.

CJ