On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:22:05PM +0200, Roel Kluin wrote:
Op 12-10-09 16:07, Herbert Xu schreef:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
.
Or should this test be removed?
diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
--- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
+++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes,
struct prng_context *ctx)
int err;
- if (nbytes 0)
+ if ((ssize_t)nbytes 0)
return -EINVAL;
spin_lock_bh(ctx-prng_lock);
No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert,
could you
pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.
Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?
In that case:
--8--8-
size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0 and the test was redundant.
Acked-by: Neil Horman nhor...@tuxdriver.com
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin roel.kl...@gmail.com
---
diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
index 3aa6e38..47995ae 100644
--- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
+++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
@@ -192,9 +192,6 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes,
struct prng_context *ctx)
int err;
- if (nbytes 0)
- return -EINVAL;
-
spin_lock_bh(ctx-prng_lock);
err = -EINVAL;
There you go, yes :)
Acked-by: Neil Horman nhor...@tuxdriver.com
Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-crypto in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
