From: Alain Michaud <alainmichaud@google.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
BlueZ <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Simplify / fix return values from tk_request
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:56:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALWDO_VfZV0_uvsXyWAa-uOQ21228rUDsaChgkex88pyiP3U=A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f0ea237-5976-e56f-cd31-96b76bb03254@roeck-us.net>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:43 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 4/3/20 8:13 AM, Alain Michaud wrote:
> > Hi Guenter/Marcel,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:03 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some static checker run by 0day reports a variableScope warning.
> >>
> >> net/bluetooth/smp.c:870:6: warning:
> >> The scope of the variable 'err' can be reduced. [variableScope]
> >>
> >> There is no need for two separate variables holding return values.
> >> Stick with the existing variable. While at it, don't pre-initialize
> >> 'ret' because it is set in each code path.
> >>
> >> tk_request() is supposed to return a negative error code on errors,
> >> not a bluetooth return code. The calling code converts the return
> >> value to SMP_UNSPECIFIED if needed.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 92516cd97fd4 ("Bluetooth: Always request for user confirmation for Just Works")
> >> Cc: Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@chromium.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> >> ---
> >> net/bluetooth/smp.c | 9 ++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/smp.c b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> index d0b695ee49f6..30e8626dd553 100644
> >> --- a/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> @@ -854,8 +854,7 @@ static int tk_request(struct l2cap_conn *conn, u8 remote_oob, u8 auth,
> >> struct l2cap_chan *chan = conn->smp;
> >> struct smp_chan *smp = chan->data;
> >> u32 passkey = 0;
> >> - int ret = 0;
> >> - int err;
> >> + int ret;
> >>
> >> /* Initialize key for JUST WORKS */
> >> memset(smp->tk, 0, sizeof(smp->tk));
> >> @@ -887,12 +886,12 @@ static int tk_request(struct l2cap_conn *conn, u8 remote_oob, u8 auth,
> >> /* If Just Works, Continue with Zero TK and ask user-space for
> >> * confirmation */
> >> if (smp->method == JUST_WORKS) {
> >> - err = mgmt_user_confirm_request(hcon->hdev, &hcon->dst,
> >> + ret = mgmt_user_confirm_request(hcon->hdev, &hcon->dst,
> >> hcon->type,
> >> hcon->dst_type,
> >> passkey, 1);
> >> - if (err)
> >> - return SMP_UNSPECIFIED;
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> > I think there may be some miss match between expected types of error
> > codes here. The SMP error code type seems to be expected throughout
> > this code base, so this change would propagate a potential negative
> > value while the rest of the SMP protocol expects strictly positive
> > error codes.
> >
>
> Up to the patch introducing the SMP_UNSPECIFIED return value, tk_request()
> returned negative error codes, and all callers convert it to SMP_UNSPECIFIED.
>
> If tk_request() is supposed to return SMP_UNSPECIFIED on error, it should
> be returned consistently, and its callers don't have to convert it again.
Agreed, the conventions aren't clear here. I'll differ to Marcel to
provide guidance in this case where as a long term solution might
increase the scope of this patch beyond what would be reasonable.
>
> Guenter
>
> >> set_bit(SMP_FLAG_WAIT_USER, &smp->flags);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alain
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-03 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-03 15:02 [PATCH] Bluetooth: Simplify / fix return values from tk_request Guenter Roeck
2020-04-03 15:13 ` Alain Michaud
2020-04-03 16:42 ` Guenter Roeck
2020-04-03 16:56 ` Alain Michaud [this message]
2020-04-04 0:39 ` Sonny Sasaka
2020-04-06 12:06 ` Marcel Holtmann
2020-04-06 18:13 ` Sonny Sasaka
2020-04-06 18:26 ` Marcel Holtmann
2020-04-06 18:45 ` Guenter Roeck
2020-04-06 19:15 ` Sonny Sasaka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CALWDO_VfZV0_uvsXyWAa-uOQ21228rUDsaChgkex88pyiP3U=A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alainmichaud@google.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=johan.hedberg@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sonnysasaka@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).