Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk,
        straube.linux@gmail.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs
Date:   Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:21:30 +0200
Message-ID: <2244219.zNr1yEsLHP@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <YSJFhmTs74PUyo8b@kroah.com>
References: <cover.1629479152.git.paskripkin@gmail.com> <435eea22-da31-1ebc-840c-ee9e42b27265@gmail.com> <YSJFhmTs74PUyo8b@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 2:39:34 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 03:10:56PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > On 8/22/21 1:59 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:09:29 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
[...]
> > > So, it's up to the callers to test if (!_rtw_read*()) and then act
> > > accordingly. If they get 0 they should know how to handle the errors.
> > 
> > Yes, but _rtw_read*() == 0 indicates 2 states:
> > 	1. Error on transfer side
> > 	2. Actual register value is 0
> 
> That's not a good design, it should be fixed.  Note there is the new
> usb_control_msg_recv() function which should probably be used instead
> here, to prevent this problem from happening.

I think that no functions should return 0 for signaling FAILURE. If I'm not 
wrong, the kernel quite always prefers to return 0 on SUCCESS and <0 on 
FAILURE. Why don't you just fix this?

> > > In summation. if anything should be changed, it is the code of the 
callers of
> > > _rtw_read*() if you find out they they don't properly handle the 
returning
> > > values of this function. You should find every place where _rtw_read*() 
are
> > > called and figure out if the returns are properly checked and handled; 
if not,
> > > make some change only there.
> > > 
> > > Larry, Philip, where are you? Am I missing something?
> 
> Relax, there is no need to get jumpy, people do not have to respond
> instantly to emails here.  Especially when it is not their job to do so.

I should have placed a big smile at the end of the phrase. I was just kidding 
while trying to get their attention. I know there is no hurry and that no one 
has any obligation of this kind. Again, just kidding :)

Thanks,

Fabio

> greg k-h