linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] remoteproc: Restructure firmware name allocation

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: <20200417212806.GB10372@xps15>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:28:06 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] remoteproc: Restructure firmware name allocation

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:39:39AM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> 
> On 4/16/20 1:26 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > …
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > @@ -1984,14 +1984,14 @@ static int rproc_alloc_firmware(struct rproc *rproc,
> > >   {
> > >   	const char *p;
> > > 
> > > -	if (!firmware)
> > > +	if (firmware)
> > > +		p = kstrdup_const(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	else
> > >   		/*
> > >   		 * If the caller didn't pass in a firmware name then
> > >   		 * construct a default name.
> > >   		 */
> > >   		p = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rproc-%s-fw", name);
> > > -	else
> > > -		p = kstrdup_const(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > Can the use of the conditional operator make sense at such source code places?
> > 
> > 	p = firmware ? kstrdup_const(…) : kasprintf(…);
> 
> For simple assignments, I too prefer the ternary operator, but in this case,
> I think it is better to leave the current code as is.

I agree with Suman, that's why I didn't use the conditional operator.

> 
> regards
> Suman