linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] staging: fsl-mc: MC bus IRQ support

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: <20150507135854.GJ14154@mwanda>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2015 16:58:55 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	"J. German Rivera" <German.Rivera@...escale.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stuart.yoder@...escale.com, bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com,
	agraf@...e.de, bhamciu1@...escale.com, nir.erez@...escale.com,
	itai.katz@...escale.com, scottwood@...escale.com,
	R89243@...escale.com, richard.schmitt@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] staging: fsl-mc: MC bus IRQ support

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:28:22PM -0500, J. German Rivera wrote:
> @@ -350,17 +324,280 @@ int dprc_scan_container(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_bus_dev)
>  	 * Discover objects in the DPRC:
>  	 */
>  	mutex_lock(&mc_bus->scan_mutex);
> -	error = dprc_scan_objects(mc_bus_dev);
> +	error = dprc_scan_objects(mc_bus_dev, &irq_count);
>  	mutex_unlock(&mc_bus->scan_mutex);
>  	if (error < 0)
> -		goto error;
> +		return error;
> +
> +	if (!mc_bus->irq_resources) {

This can never be true.  It confused me for a while because otherwise it
looks like there is an obvious bug here.  I also think
dprc_scan_container() should be named something alloc because that's
really what it does.

> +		irq_count += FSL_MC_IRQ_POOL_MAX_EXTRA_IRQS;
> +		error = fsl_mc_populate_irq_pool(mc_bus, irq_count);
> +		if (error < 0)
> +			return error;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

[ snip ]

> @@ -415,10 +652,20 @@ static int dprc_probe(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev)
>  	if (error < 0)
>  		goto error_cleanup_open;
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * Configure interrupts for the DPRC object associated with this MC bus:
> +	 */
> +	error = dprc_setup_irqs(mc_dev);
> +	if (error < 0)
> +		goto error_cleanup_open;
> +
>  	dev_info(&mc_dev->dev, "DPRC device bound to driver");
>  	return 0;
> 
>  error_cleanup_open:
> +	if (mc_bus->irq_resources)
> +		fsl_mc_cleanup_irq_pool(mc_bus);

This isn't beautiful beause we're not cleaning up open here.  We're
de-allocating dprc_scan_container().  Introduce a new label, and remove
the if statement so it looks like this:

error_free_scan:
	unscan_the_container(mc_bus);
error_cleanup_open:
	(void)dprc_close(mc_dev->mc_io, mc_dev->mc_handle);


> +
>  	(void)dprc_close(mc_dev->mc_io, mc_dev->mc_handle);
> 
>  error_cleanup_mc_io:

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/