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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:39:49 +0200 From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Sahil Mehta <sahilmehta17@...il.com>, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>, Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc-pseries: Return directly after a failed kzalloc_node() in iommu_pseries_alloc_group() On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:04:43 +0200 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static struct iommu_table_group > >> *iommu_pseries_alloc_group(int node) table_group = > >> kzalloc_node(sizeof(*table_group), GFP_KERNEL, node); if > >> (!table_group) > >> - goto fail_exit; > >> + return NULL; > >> > >> tbl = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*tbl), GFP_KERNEL, node); > >> if (!tbl) > > > > I have seen quite a few fixes that do inverse of this patch after a > > piece of code allocating some extra piece of memory was added before > > code that just returns on fail because it is the first allocation in > > the function. > > > > This is not useful. > > How do you think about an information from the section “7) > Centralized exiting of functions” in the document “coding-style.rst” > then? > > “… > If there is no cleanup needed then just return directly. > …” There is also stated benefit " - errors by not updating individual exit points when making modifications are prevented " which is furthered by using the common cleanup even in case no cleanup is required but running the cleanup does not cause any harm. Thanks Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists