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: <20240206120303.0fd22238@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:03:03 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
Cc: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 <igor.bagnucki@...el.com>, <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10 iwl-next] idpf: refactor virtchnl messages

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:18:48 -0800 Alan Brady wrote:
> We did run coccinelle check and see the min suggestions. It's triggering 
> on these statements I added:
> 
> return reply_sz < 0 ? reply_sz : 0;
> 
> A min here would change it to:
> 
> return min(reply_sz, 0);
> 
> I didn't really like that because it's misleading as though we're 
> returning the size of the reply and might accidentally encourage someone 
> to change it to a max. Here reply_sz will be negative if an error was 
> returned from message sending. But this function we only want to return 
> 0 or negative. By being explicit in what we want to do, it seems clearer 
> to me what the intention is but I could be wrong.
> 
> We can definitely change it however if that's preferred here.

Hm, okay, that does sound like making it worse.
I'll disable the minmax coccicheck for now, it seems noisy.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ