Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:24:27 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 153/190] Revert "media: usb: gspca: add a missed return-value check for do_command" |
| |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:00:28PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This reverts commit 5ceaf5452c1b2a452dadaf377f9f07af7bda9cc3. > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known > malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota). > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if > they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the > codebase. > > Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu> > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > --- > drivers/media/usb/gspca/cpia1.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/gspca/cpia1.c b/drivers/media/usb/gspca/cpia1.c > index d93d384286c1..99e594559a0c 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/usb/gspca/cpia1.c > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/gspca/cpia1.c > @@ -537,14 +537,10 @@ static int do_command(struct gspca_dev *gspca_dev, u16 command, > } > if (sd->params.qx3.button) { > /* button pressed - unlock the latch */ > - ret = do_command(gspca_dev, CPIA_COMMAND_WriteMCPort, > + do_command(gspca_dev, CPIA_COMMAND_WriteMCPort, > 3, 0xdf, 0xdf, 0); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - ret = do_command(gspca_dev, CPIA_COMMAND_WriteMCPort, > + do_command(gspca_dev, CPIA_COMMAND_WriteMCPort, > 3, 0xff, 0xff, 0); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > } > > /* test whether microscope is cradled */ > -- > 2.31.1 >
This looks correct, I'll drop the revert.
But ick, recursion? What could go wrong....
greg k-h
| |