On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This one actually seems to imply that vmw_cmd_invalid() is broken: >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c:522:34: warning: the omitted >> middle operand in ?: will always be ‘true’, suggest explicit middle >> operand [-Wparentheses] >> return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? : -EINVAL; >> ^ >> >> gcc is very right. I think the *intent* of that function is to return >> 0 if CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but it always returns nonzero. >> >> If CAP_SYS_ADMIN is true, it returns 1, and if it's false it returns -EINVAL. >> >> Since nobody has noticed in many many years, maybe it should just >> always return -EINVAL unconditionally? > > Fun one. It's the security parser afaict, and it looks like no one > wrote a testcase to make sure it actually catches the bad guys. Or > it's not needed, since there's 3 more security checks above it in > vmw_cmd_check. Meh got it wrong, it rejects always. Could indeed just be dead code since forever, no idea why that's there. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
