linux-kernel - Re: powerpc/nvram: Move an assignment for the variable "ret" in dev_nvram

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <cbd6e372-111e-c73a-713b-62d7abd7ddfd@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:52:44 -0800
From:   Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geliang Tang <geliangtang@....com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
Subject: Re: powerpc/nvram: Move an assignment for the variable "ret" in
 dev_nvram_write()

On 01/19/2017 11:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> I think you really could have squashed patches 1-3 into a single patch
>> that returns directly after any failure.
> 
> Thanks for your constructive feedback.
> 
> I have got software development concerns around such patch squashing.
> 
> 
>> At this point you might as well remove that label and move the kfree(tmp) call up
>> and return directly after the failure and at the nvram_write() call site
>> doing away completely with the "ret" variable.
> 
> Your idea might look nice at first glance. But I would interpret the previous
> implementation of the discussed function in the way that the memory which was
> dynamically allocated here should always (not only in the failure case) be released
> before returning here.

You are correct. I did muck that part up. However, I do still believe it
is cleaner to squash your three patches together. There is no functional
change here and it is clearer in a single patch that you are modifying
the function to return directly in the simple error cases.

-Tyrel

> 
> Would you really like to change the life time for this “temporary” data item?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>