Re: [PATCH] btusb: fix overflow return values

[Adam Lee <adam.lee@canonical.com>]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:55:01AM +0800, Adam Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:50:54AM -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > Hi Adam,
> > 
> > > PTR_ERR() returns a long type value, but btusb_setup_intel() and
> > > btusb_setup_intel_patching() should return an int type value.
> > > 
> > > This bug makes the judgement "if (ret < 0)" not working on x86_64
> > > architecture systems, leading to failure as below, even panic.
> > > ...
> > > For not affecting other modules, I choose to modify the return values
> > > but not extend btusb_setup_intel() and btusb_setup_intel_patching()'s
> > > return types. This is harmless, because the return values were only
> > > used to comparing number 0.
> > 
> > there are tons of examples in various subsystems and drivers where we
> > return PTR_ERR from a function calls returning int.
> > 
> > So I wonder what is actually going wrong here. If this is x86_64
> > specific problem with PTR_ERR vs int, then we should have this problem
> > everywhere in the kernel.
> 
> Hi, Marcel
> 
> I see you point, the difference between here and other subsystems are:
> 
> 1, it returns -PTR_ERR() here but all other places return PTR_ERR(), I
> checked.
> 2, the judgement is "if (ret < 0)" here but other places are "if (ret)".
> 
> I'm not saying other subsystems are 100% right, but here, returning
> -PTR_ERR() and checking "if (ret < 0)" make the judgement broken much
> much more easily.
> 
> I attached a testing C file, run it on x86_64, you will see the bug.
> 
> PS, about other subsystems, I also think returning PTR_ERR() from a
> function calls returning int considered harmful sometimes, will talk
> about that in other thread.

Hi, all

After diving into the err.h, I realized this patch contains some
modifications which are actually not necessary. Will submit a v2
version and explain.

PS, other subsystems are using it right, this not.

-- 
Regards,
Adam Lee
Hardware Enablement