netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bnxt_en: Check devlink allocation and registration status

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:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:39:56 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Anirudh Venkataramanan <anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com,
        GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Javed Hasan <jhasan@...vell.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@...vell.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sathya Perla <sathya.perla@...adcom.com>,
        Saurav Kashyap <skashyap@...vell.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bnxt_en: Check devlink allocation and
 registration status

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 02:11:19 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > @@ -835,9 +837,6 @@ void bnxt_dl_unregister(struct bnxt *bp)
> > >  {
> > >         struct devlink *dl = bp->dl;
> > >
> > > -       if (!dl)
> > > -               return;
> > > -  
> > 
> > minor nit: There's obviously nothing incorrect about doing this (and
> > adding the additional error label in the cleanup code above), but bnxt
> > has generally adopted a style of having cleanup functions being
> > idempotent. It generally makes error handling simpler and less error
> > prone.  
> 
> I would argue that opposite is true. Such "impossible" checks hide unwind
> flow errors, missing releases e.t.c.

+1, fwiw