[PATCH v2] KEYS: remove redundant memset
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Thu Jul 23 02:39:54 UTC 2020
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:20:00PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 13:10 -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> > On 7/22/20 1:02 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 06:46 -0700, trix at redhat.com wrote:
> > > > From: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewing use of memset in keyctrl_pkey.c
> > > >
> > > > keyctl_pkey_params_get prologue code to set params up
> > > >
> > > > memset(params, 0, sizeof(*params));
> > > > params->encoding = "raw";
> > > >
> > > > keyctl_pkey_query has the same prologue
> > > > and calls keyctl_pkey_params_get.
> > > >
> > > > So remove the prologue.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 00d60fd3b932 ("KEYS: Provide keyctls to drive the new key type ops for asymmetric keys [ver #2]")
> > > At best, this is a micro optimization.
> > Yes
> > > How is this appropriate for a Fixes: line?
> > Removing unneeded code is not a fix?
>
> IMO: there's no "bug" here.
>
> It's not a logic defect causing some unintended outcome.
> It doesn't need backporting to stable branches.
>
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst-If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst-the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.
I agree.
At worst it can cause unnecessary merge conflicts when backporting
bug fixes.
No measurable gain merging it.
/Jarkko
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list