2016-12-03 11:34:47

by Pan Bian

Subject: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

In function caif_sktinit_module(), the check of the return value of
sock_register() seems ineffective. This patch fixes it.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188751

Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
---
net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/caif/caif_socket.c b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
index aa209b1..2a689a3 100644
--- a/net/caif/caif_socket.c
+++ b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
@@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int caif_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
static int __init caif_sktinit_module(void)
{
int err = sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
- if (!err)
+ if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
--
1.9.1

2016-12-03 13:18:02

by Sergei Shtylyov

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

Hello.

On 12/3/2016 2:18 PM, Pan Bian wrote:

> In function caif_sktinit_module(), the check of the return value of
> sock_register() seems ineffective. This patch fixes it.
>
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188751
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/caif/caif_socket.c b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> index aa209b1..2a689a3 100644
> --- a/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> +++ b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int caif_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
> static int __init caif_sktinit_module(void)
> {
> int err = sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
> - if (!err)
> + if (err)
> return err;

Why not just:

return sock_register(&caif_family_ops);

> return 0;
> }

MBR, Sergei

2016-12-03 16:29:22

by Pan Bian

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

From: PanBian <[email protected]>

Hello Sergei,

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:17:51PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 12/3/2016 2:18 PM, Pan Bian wrote:
>
> >In function caif_sktinit_module(), the check of the return value of
> >sock_register() seems ineffective. This patch fixes it.
> >
> >Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188751
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
> >---
> > net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/caif/caif_socket.c b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >index aa209b1..2a689a3 100644
> >--- a/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >+++ b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
> >@@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int caif_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
> > static int __init caif_sktinit_module(void)
> > {
> > int err = sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
> >- if (!err)
> >+ if (err)
> > return err;
>
> Why not just:
>
> return sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
>
Your solution looks much cleaner.

But I am not really sure whether it is the author's intention to
return 0 anyway. Do you have any idea?

Thanks!
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> MBR, Sergei
>

Best regards,
Pan

2016-12-03 21:05:53

by Sergei Shtylyov

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: caif: fix ineffective error check

On 12/03/2016 06:38 PM, Pan Bian wrote:

>>> In function caif_sktinit_module(), the check of the return value of
>>> sock_register() seems ineffective. This patch fixes it.
>>>
>>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188751
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/caif/caif_socket.c b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
>>> index aa209b1..2a689a3 100644
>>> --- a/net/caif/caif_socket.c
>>> +++ b/net/caif/caif_socket.c
>>> @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int caif_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
>>> static int __init caif_sktinit_module(void)
>>> {
>>> int err = sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
>>> - if (!err)
>>> + if (err)
>>> return err;
>>
>> Why not just:
>>
>> return sock_register(&caif_family_ops);
>>
> Your solution looks much cleaner.
>
> But I am not really sure whether it is the author's intention to
> return 0 anyway. Do you have any idea?

I don't think so, the error check seems to have a typo.

[...]

> Best regards,
> Pan

MBR, Sergei