linux-kernel - Re: iio/accel/stk8312: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions

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: <c2620449-b80a-f0ef-c0d2-92d0c7fb4906@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:15:54 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iio/accel/stk8312: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions

> In the second case, the jump backwards just makes the code harder
> to read than it currently is.

Maybe …

But I proposed an other source code layout for useful reasons.


> There is no firm rule about error handling in one place.

There are some design options available.


> If it leads to more complex flow as here, don't do it.

I would appreciate to clarify such a view a bit more.
How would you like to achieve a complete and efficient
exception handling in shown places?

Regards,
Markus