On 17-02-06 16:25:20, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:09:18PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > From: Ben Hutchings > [...] > > > + ret = usb_control_msg(dev->udev, usb_rcvctrlpipe(dev->udev, 0), > > > + RTL8150_REQ_GET_REGS, RTL8150_REQT_READ, > > > + indx, 0, buf, size, 500); > > > + if (ret > 0 && ret <= size) > > > + memcpy(data, buf, ret); > > > > If ret > size something is horridly wrong. > > Silently not updating the callers buffer at all cannot be right. > > Yes, it seems strange to check this. I originally wrote this as ret > > 0, but then I checked the usbnet core and found __usbnet_read_cmd() > has the second comparison as well. > > > > + kfree(buf); > > > + return ret;
Since we return what usb_control_msg() told us to return i assume the error code will be available to anybody who cares. > > I can't help feeling that it would be better to add a wrapper to > > usb_control_msg() that does the kmalloc() and memcpy()s and > > drop that into all the call sites. > > It might be. Right now I'm trying to patch up a bunch of regressions rather > than argue over an API change. Right, first thing first. I am in favor of changing the API, but this should not happen in the stable releases. I hope Greg will make up his mind and let us know. cheers, Petko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
