linux-kernel - Re: [patch net-next] stmmac: indent an if statement

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, 17 Jan 2017 09:25:21 +0100
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] stmmac: indent an if statement

Hi Julia

On 01/16/2017 11:10 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46:22PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:19:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:14:38PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>>>>> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:46:32 +0300
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The break statement should be indented one more tab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Applied, but like Julia I think we might have a missing of_node_put()
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, sorry for dropping the ball on this.  I'll send a patch for
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I've looked at it some more and I think this function is OK.
>>>> We're supposed to do an of_node_put() later...  I can't find where that
>>>> happens, but presumably that's because I don't know stmmac well.  This
>>>> code here, though, is fine.
>>>
>>> Why do you think it is fine?  Does anyone in the calling context know
>>> which child would have caused the break?
>>
>> Yeah.  It's saved in plat->mdio_node and we expect to be holding on
>> either path through the function.
>>
>> (It would be better if one of the stmmac people were responding here
>> insead of a random fix the indenting weenie like myself.)
>
> OK, I agree that there should not be an of_node_put with the break.
>
> Perhaps there should be an of_node_put on plat->mdio_node in
> stmmac_remove_config_dt, like there is an of_node_put on plat->phy_node.
> But it would certainly be helpful to hear from someone who knows the code
> better.

I also think it's missing! Can you propose a patch ?

br
Alex

>
> julia
>