On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:38:26 +0300 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We put an upper bound on "new" but we don't check for negatives.
U8_MAX has unsigned type, so `if (new > U8_MAX)' does check for negative.
> In
> this case the underflow doesn't matter very much, but we may as well
> make the static checker happy.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/lib/test_firmware.c
> +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
> @@ -326,15 +326,12 @@ static ssize_t test_dev_config_show_int(char *buf, int cfg)
> static int test_dev_config_update_u8(const char *buf, size_t size, u8 *cfg)
> {
> int ret;
> - long new;
> + u8 new;
>
> - ret = kstrtol(buf, 10, &new);
> + ret = kstrtou8(buf, 10, &new);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - if (new > U8_MAX)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> *(u8 *)cfg = new;
> mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
if *buf=="257",
previous behavior: -EINVAL
new behavior: *cfg = 1
yes?
The old behavior seems better.
