christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> writes:
> Le 01/10/2018 à 18:44, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
>> The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
>> size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
>> we accidentally return success instead of a negative error code.
>>
>> This doesn't really change runtime much but it fixes a static checker
>> warning.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/os-area.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/os-area.c
>> index cdbfc5cfd6f3..f5387ad82279 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/os-area.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/os-area.c
>> @@ -664,7 +664,7 @@ static int update_flash_db(void)
>> db_set_64(db, &os_area_db_id_rtc_diff, saved_params.rtc_diff);
>>
>> count = os_area_flash_write(db, sizeof(struct os_area_db), pos);
>> - if (count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)) {
>> + if (count < 0 || count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)) {
>
> Why not simply add a cast ? :
>
> if (count < (ssize_t)sizeof(struct os_area_db)) {
The explicit check against 0 is much clearer IMO.
The original author and all reviewers since obviously didn't realise
that count was being implicitly cast, so fixing that with another cast
seems likely to just confuse people even more :)
cheers
