netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 00/10 iwl-next] idpf: refactor virtchnl messages

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: 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.