From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com (mail-wr1-f51.google.com [209.85.221.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3279F64A98; Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744895271; cv=none; b=B05G8dbCxPJgdghoCzHVbK4zRs2AtpSBhY8391ns1a3sa5IBkuO2zb3IiauFioUNeYy+vul2fcLjgkVkwWhp1UCjN6L7wRdxfliDjFbvO74iOjiKv9R5hu/frLZKVegd49aoqPvYRr617R4OSvLfkIm65Y2h5oLKB3gig9au198= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744895271; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UjV9aC2iKPYoWSiVENtanYjNOx1Slgo6xak/xSRZJqQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cUwiJPCcpeKdhaWpSesUa2utLUFHwVnLhVaQq2nu72vksKgZAcICyOUiV8XCAJxw9IA9WAvZhypIoN+bS47OSRI1Jyl91Zq74AYzDLaafi2TXfK3kgomqUFpfSaDB2jqcLYMtvZkXDmY2QHzGsiPCOZmdGRF6m6kKbyKUrYg0Tc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=PrV+GUKg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="PrV+GUKg" Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-39c2688619bso478020f8f.1; Thu, 17 Apr 2025 06:07:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1744895268; x=1745500068; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CdZ/++ZH3GtnA2ccX3OYnMNThHIYKD/1Ho+RU8AFgE4=; b=PrV+GUKglNUrO5zhuW/47jQ9sjWYUlDPbUhbcg/DhXhGI6AZ2T+pdTl1F6TRBACmv/ hAne3AFFdVGPwO3YlOQMgy2d5LWkqvDgSnxbP4tH3GKTUbNUNj43RnifWzv9+2R7oMhb +qHSBrsCmh0xnKC2wjNrG3KnaQ96Rm2sLlWWsBi+ZM9R7FOsxDPprC5eSLiY0/6RKf1S Zna/aM22yKns68aetLSKo36qE/gf1CS6by2gsaNKhQcjvTAuUYoz5vvVKK1T9WJSh/Eq Tx6Mw5BkzgdUpUkAI0++fpbZX/BAdGdt//YEXZlJsd2Ig8Umv2tgS32HAaGMnIMnMT3h yDDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1744895268; x=1745500068; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CdZ/++ZH3GtnA2ccX3OYnMNThHIYKD/1Ho+RU8AFgE4=; b=cl+E3KzXpMVTo4rQKCu0UfRKQqr6L/cDuoBfalZ7Jt0U7U0AsDgKDyx9SogbIvP3Yz E+kzKdKwAS4Y7+xMFQ6TydoXZMdIfWQrLDg7mSow3fLdUyJZOIU6DymQjyjKob+tN8/C rAa0hx3KNEkFZYlTxogwX+ywzWvPPFsFWqjcRS0uHp8RXVzwckJjKJx9OoPL+ma50yv6 sTLtjObzNGGwZlLREivSi+nUqFDh8McsiSxYFH2dGpLwalJ7L0h2lM2iZXoJa45033fa GjlBptQnTmB6k2R2OGtuhXc2qS5X65g8hsGlZJDen4dfAo5lHezP04jaUOmgVF+Pq/57 oM7Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU/xMPWTJOGfhODsNgNeOTsO1sFShTv5L2E5GCiU+lwEWJd+0Os44pwpAL0Qn95AHudzlFDP70akLKaRgw=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCU5QgWvlsVR4qo0eRrkVued1OtJ20v00ucwiAenBRgwpC1M5Qr7SdojCD5A91QTZgRDASBWXPUw@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWMbziagGpQFUiu1K4CuFs9yt+gpz8jjsjhLPOIAfNbOpMSkvnVL8qOoEaINBdLY+z6s82+Y9c6@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWN/jae5NnrvWTDm73RI1OKgvdRMLMWbgzp2TFCmop4b14DXbFaAsK74vnqlFEHfuOJ70+77++WDTrs@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxMg1+YgSdCjz1HkLYpguA0CnfwYWOBDAvR0sD04uNAmQ4neqss YCy+9uW5W+HLhp0Ysctg1giNmVkuuTKo2/SA6u280rKsOai0Tz3E X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsxeMPjcum2O4gKlNUrOEQ4Ion39LWRAxKzZmXuzKIspQX8Pff+snEXkiI2pPv U2304EYXo1uYJxWA9E04dVU1GGdLbNVWYQxBDzqJb/jN9/HW1D9fs3QfZmq3i5TQ/pjfYjYIh/t 0ESTel/ymZP+WQDAp3oWdSxLQUU0qgwEmDMUVzZ4kvNbb4UY/ZcGrQvkhqWk7EXOek4lo4CAoV3 A+Juqjq+0FariZr5OIJWXWa8/ZMq3OJ+lafwKU8sF8tREcqwiTCQeRUoI5hghMvndT3m3yYVelS 9ohpExjcNV9mX2YB/bEeh/aTzer+2NTkh2U4XTw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHb8mvMFNp6gOWVQLM5OsbQP1zjX7lIIaNxG4URsFT43g10QOXLplmQlUjGdo3GH+1kBmp/fw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1ac8:b0:39c:266c:421 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-39ee5adbf1fmr4730232f8f.0.1744895266662; Thu, 17 Apr 2025 06:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com ([2a02:c7c:6696:8300:30d6:b851:2d62:d3f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4405b53dee0sm52901945e9.33.2025.04.17.06.07.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Apr 2025 06:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 14:07:38 +0100 From: Qasim Ijaz To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+3361c2d6f78a3e0892f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] net: ch9200: add missing error handling in ch9200_bind() Message-ID: References: <20250412183829.41342-1-qasdev00@gmail.com> <20250412183829.41342-5-qasdev00@gmail.com> <20250415204708.13dc3156@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250415204708.13dc3156@kernel.org> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 08:47:08PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 19:38:28 +0100 Qasim Ijaz wrote: > > retval = usbnet_get_endpoints(dev, intf); > > - if (retval) > > + if (retval < 0) > > return retval; > > This change is unnecessary ? Commit message speaks of control_write(), > this is usbnet_get_endpoints(). So this change was done mainly for consistency with the other error checks in the function. Essentially in my one of my previous patches () I was using "if (retval)" for error handling, however after Simon's recommendation to use "if (retval < 0)" I changed this. In this particular function I took Simons advice but then noticed that the usbnet_get_endpoints() check was still using "if (retval)" so I decided to make it the same as the others. The behaviour is still the same regardless of it we do "if (retval < 0)" or "if (retval)" for checking usbnet_get_endpoints() since it returns 0 on success or negative on failure. So in ch9200_bind: In the first case of "if (retval)", if the usbnet_get_endpoints() function fails and returns negative then we execute this branch and it returns negative, if it succeeds with 0 then the ch9200_bind function continues. In the second case of "if (retval < 0)", if the usbnet_get_endpoints() function fails and returns negative then we execute this branch and it returns negative, if it succeeds with 0 then ch9200_bind function continues. If you like I can include this in the patch description for clarity or remove it entirely.