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  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:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <>
To:     Hans de Goede <>,
Cc:     Hartmut Knaack <>,
        Jonathan Cameron <>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <>,
        LKML <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio/accel/bmc150: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two

> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a single unlock call
> at the end, not a separate one in in error label.

Thanks for your update suggestion.

Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments
in this software area?

> Could e.g. change this:
>         ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
>         mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 return ret;
>         return IIO_VAL_INT;
> }
> To:
>         ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 goto unlock;
>     ret = IIO_VAL_INT;

How do you think about to use the following code variant then?

	if (!ret)
		ret = IIO_VAL_INT;

> unlock:
>         mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>         return ret;
> }
> And also use the unlock label in the other cases, this is actually
> quite a normal pattern. I see little use in a patch like this if there
> are still 2 unlock paths after the patch.

How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small
source code adjustment will be appropriate?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists