Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: fix brace coding style issues

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:47:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 08:21:55PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
>> >> Remove braces from single line if statements.
>> >> Also fix a comparsion to NULL in one of the conditions.
>> >> Issues found by checkpatch.

>> >> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_debug.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_debug.c
>> >> @@ -618,9 +618,8 @@ ssize_t proc_set_wait_hiq_empty(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer, si
>> >>       if (count < 1)
>> >>               return -EFAULT;
>> >>
>> >> -     if (buffer && !copy_from_user(tmp, buffer, sizeof(tmp))) {
>> >> +     if (buffer && !copy_from_user(tmp, buffer, sizeof(tmp)))
>> >>               sscanf(tmp, "%u", &g_wait_hiq_empty);
>> >> -     }
>> >
>> >
>> > The original code is kind of bad.  The NULL check isn't required.
>> > The sscanf call should have error checking.  The error code is wrong if
>> > the copy from user fails.  The tmp buffer isn't NUL terminated.
>> >
>> >         if (copy_from_user(tmp, buffer, sizeof(tmp)))
>> >                 return -EFAULT;
>> >         tmp[sizeof(tmp) - 1] = '\0';
>> >
>> >         if (sscanf(tmp, "%u", &g_wait_hiq_empty) != 1)
>> >                 return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> >         return count;
>>
>> Shouldn't this be
>>
>> kstrtouint_from_user()
>>
>> instead of all those lines?
>
> I wasn't sure kstrtoint() was the exact same as sscanf()...  If so then
> sure.

In this case it's very close to what sscanf() is doing here including
all user buffer handing.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko