Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:00:42 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>
Cc:     alexander.usyskin@intel.com, tomas.winkler@intel.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        trix@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] misc: mei: client.c: fix problem of return
 '-EOVERFLOW' in mei_cl_write
Message-ID: <2023120452-stool-party-bf2b@gregkh>
References: <20231128014507.418254-1-suhui@nfschina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231128014507.418254-1-suhui@nfschina.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:45:08AM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
> Clang static analyzer complains that value stored to 'rets' is never
> read.Using 'goto err' to go to the error path and fix this problem.
> 
> Fixes: 8c8d964ce90f ("mei: move hbuf_depth from the mei device to the hw modules")
> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>

How was this tested?

> ---
> v3: 
>  - using 'goto err' rather than 'buf_len=-EOVERFLOW'.(Thanks to Sasha)
> 
> v2:
>  - split v1 patch to different patches
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231120095523.178385-2-suhui@nfschina.com/
> 
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5c98fc07-36a9-92cc-f8d6-c4efdc0c34aa@nfschina.com/
> 
>  drivers/misc/mei/client.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> index 7ea80779a0e2..0489bec4fded 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> @@ -2033,7 +2033,7 @@ ssize_t mei_cl_write(struct mei_cl *cl, struct mei_cl_cb *cb, unsigned long time
>  	hbuf_slots = mei_hbuf_empty_slots(dev);
>  	if (hbuf_slots < 0) {
>  		rets = -EOVERFLOW;
> -		goto out;
> +		goto err;

Please prove that this is correct, as based on the code logic, it seems
very wrong.  I can't take this unless the code is tested properly.

thanks,

greg k-h