linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] SCSI-QLA4...: Less function calls in qla4xxx_is_session

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: <20150207103249.GA5155@mwanda>
Date:	Sat, 7 Feb 2015 13:32:49 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"James E. J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...gic.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] SCSI-QLA4...: Less function calls in
 qla4xxx_is_session_exists() after error detection

On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 11:11:03AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 11:15:13PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > index 2a00fd3..a7ca479 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > @@ -6327,17 +6327,15 @@ static int qla4xxx_is_session_exists(struct scsi_qla_host *ha,
> > >  				     uint32_t *index)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct ddb_entry *ddb_entry;
> > > -	struct ql4_tuple_ddb *fw_tddb = NULL;
> > > -	struct ql4_tuple_ddb *tmp_tddb = NULL;
> > >  	int idx;
> > >  	int ret = QLA_ERROR;
> > > +	struct ql4_tuple_ddb *tmp_tddb;
> > > +	struct ql4_tuple_ddb *fw_tddb = vzalloc(sizeof(*fw_tddb));
> > >  
> > 
> > Don't do allocations in the initializers.  Same for patches 3 and 4 as
> > well.
> 
> Why not?  I can think of some reasons, but I am wondering what is the 
> precise one.

1)  People gloss over initializers without reading them.  You shouldn't
    put complicated code in initializers.  Sarah Sharp is more strict on
    this than I am.  http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg44389.html

2)  It means you have to put a line of separation between the allocation
    and the NULL check, but they should be next to each other.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/