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:	Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:51:16 -0700
From:	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel-list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <lcapitulino@...driva.com.br>,
	zaitcev@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB Elan FTDI: check for driver registration status

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:14:05 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:

> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/ftdi-elan.c
> @@ -2903,7 +2903,7 @@ static struct usb_driver ftdi_elan_driver = {
>  };
>  static int __init ftdi_elan_init(void)
>  {
> -        int result;
> +        int result = 0;

Why do you need this?

> @@ -2918,18 +2918,25 @@ static int __init ftdi_elan_init(void)
>  	if (!respond_queue)
>  		goto err3;
>          result = usb_register(&ftdi_elan_driver);
> -        if (result)
> +        if (result) {
>                  printk(KERN_ERR "usb_register failed. Error number %d\n",
>  		       result);
> +		goto err4;
> +	}
>          return result;
>  
> + err4:
> +	destroy_workqueue(respond_queue);
>   err3:

This is fine, although I do wish you wouldn't number the exception labels.
If anything is changed, someone might try to rearrange and renumber them
and that leads to bugs.

>   err1:
> -	printk(KERN_ERR "%s couldn't create workqueue\n", ftdi_elan_driver.name);
> -	return -ENOMEM;
> +	if (result == 0) {
> +		result = -ENOMEM;
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "%s couldn't create workqueue\n", ftdi_elan_driver.name);
> +	}
> +	return result;

What in the world is this supposed to do? Under what conditions can
result be zero here?

Personally, I would get rid of the printk. If your modprobe fails,
it's a good enough indication. Or at least, change the text to
something more neutral, like "unable to initialize (%d)" and print
the error code. It's not just about workqueues now.

-- Pete
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ