Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs

Greg KH
2021-08-22T13:30:14Z

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 03:21:30PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco 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?

Fix what specifically here? The usb_control_msg() call? If so, that is
why usb_control_msg_recv() was created, as sometimes you do want to do
what usb_control_msg() does today (see the users in the USB core today
for examples of why this is needed.)

In general, yes, 0 is success, negative is error, and positive is the
number of bytes read/written.

Anyway, let's see the second round of patches here before continuing
this thread...

thanks,

greg k-h