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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1629479152.git.paskripkin@gmail.com> <435eea22-da31-1ebc-840c-ee9e42b27265@gmail.com>
 <YSJFhmTs74PUyo8b@kroah.com> <2244219.zNr1yEsLHP@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <2244219.zNr1yEsLHP@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
Date:   Sun, 22 Aug 2021 16:04:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA=Fs0=Ffo=Lk3HRSuewPLwYscN6zvpuJskmxsh6k1UR1kWpog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Cc:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 14:21, Fabio M. De Francesco
<fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Dear Fabio,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will reply to as many e-mails as
I'm able - there is no need to try and get my attention, you shall
have it by default, as and when I am able to give it :-)

As V2 has been sent out by Pavel, I will try and take a look soon.

Regards,
Phil