linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: usbduxfast: Improve unlocking of a mutex in usbduxfast_ai_insn

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:39:21 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: usbduxfast: Improve unlocking of a mutex
 in usbduxfast_ai_insn_read()

>> @@ -838,6 +834,10 @@ static int usbduxfast_ai_insn_read(struct comedi_device *dev,
>>       mutex_unlock(&devpriv->mut);
>>         return insn->n;
> 
> Minor niggle: You could also remove that call to mutex_unlock() by replacing the above three lines with:
> 
>     ret = insn->n;
> 
> which will fall through to the 'unlock:' label below.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Such a software refactoring is also possible if a corresponding
consensus could be achieved.
* Can such a change mean that the lock scope will be extended
  for both use cases (successful and failed function execution)?

* How much does this implementation matter for you?

* Would you like to achieve a small reduction of the object code there?

* How do you think about consequences from special communication settings
  by a well-known maintainer for my update suggestions?

Regards,
Markus