linux-kernel - Re: [media] ov5645: Move an error code assignment in ov5645

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <21b0f618-4f54-633a-6411-0790628d6498@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:34:55 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hansverk@...co.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [media] ov5645: Move an error code assignment in ov5645_probe()

>> Move an assignment for a specific error code so that it is stored only once
>> in this function implementation.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> How?

Would you like to experiment a bit more with the following approach
for the semantic patch language?

show_same_statements3.cocci:

@duplicated_code@
identifier work;
statement s1, s2;
type T;
@@
 T work(...)
 {
 ... when any
*if ((...) < 0)
*{
    ...
*   s1
*   s2
*}
 ... when any
*if ((...) < 0)
*{
    ...
*   s1
*   s2
*}
 ... when any
 }


>> @@ -1334,6 +1329,7 @@ static int ov5645_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>  
>>  power_down:
>>  	ov5645_s_power(&ov5645->sd, false);
>> +	ret = -ENODEV;
> 
> I don't think this is where people would expect you to set the error code
> in general.

This can be. - The view depends on some factors.


> It should rather take place before goto, not after it.

I proposed another software design direction.


> That'd mean another variable,

To which detail do you refer here?


> and I'm not convinced the result would improve the driver.

Can you see the relevance of a small code reduction in this function?

Regards,
Markus