linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements

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]

Message-ID: <1402970429.2797.3.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:00:29 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return
 statements

On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 17:44 -0700, Anish Bhatt wrote:
> My code has multiple exit lables:
> void function(void)
> {
> 	...
> 
> 	if (err1)
> 		goto exit1;
> 	...
> 	if (err2)
> 		goto exit2;
> 
> 	...
> 	return; /* Good return, no errors */
> exit1:
> 	printk(err1);
> 	return;
> exit2:
> 	printk(err2);
> }
> 
> The single tabbed return was required to prevent the good return & err1 
> messages cascading down. The extra exit label with a noop looks weird, 
> but is passing checkpatch.pl --strict, so I will go with that, thanks.
> -Anish
> 

Hmm, those return uses seem reasonable
to me.

Perhaps the test should warn only on
this specific 3 line sequence:

[any line but a label]
	return;
}

Andrew?  Anyone else?  Opinions?

--
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/