netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/ulp: remove unnecessary assignment in tcp_register

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

Message-ID: <ZoKmdGBqK7pN8vUJ@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:52:12 +0200
From: Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>
To: Liu Jing <liujing@...s.chinamobile.com>
CC: <edumazet@...gle.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	<kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ulp: remove unnecessary assignment in
 tcp_register_ulp

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 07:42:40PM +0800, Liu Jing wrote:
> in the tcp_register_ulp function, the initialized value of 'ret' is unused,
> because it will be assigned a value by the -EEXIST.thus remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liu Jing <liujing@...s.chinamobile.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c
> index 2aa442128630..d11bde357e48 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static const struct tcp_ulp_ops *__tcp_ulp_find_autoload(const char *name)
>   */
>  int tcp_register_ulp(struct tcp_ulp_ops *ulp)
>  {
> -	int ret = 0;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&tcp_ulp_list_lock);
>  	if (tcp_ulp_find(ulp->name))
> -- 
> 2.33.0
> 
> 

As far as I understand the implementation of 'tcp_register_ulp', the only
case when -EEXIST value will be assigned to 'ret' is when
'tcp_ulp_find()' returns true.
In all other cases the return value should be zero.

According to my understanding, uninitialized return value has been
introduced in this patch which is not correct.

Thanks,
Nacked-by: Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>