linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2] firmware: stratix10-svc: Fix some error handling paths in stratix10_svc_drv

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:51:00 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Christophe Jaillet <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2] firmware: stratix10-svc: Fix some error handling
 paths in stratix10_svc_drv_probe()

> While at it, also move a 'platform_device_put()' call to the error handling path.

How do you think about to use the message “Complete exception handling
in stratix10_svc_drv_probe()” in the final commit subject?


…
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
…
> @@ -1043,24 +1043,34 @@  static int stratix10_svc_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
…
> +	return 0;
> +
> +put_platform:
> +	platform_device_put(svc->stratix10_svc_rsu);
> +err_free_kfifo:
…
>  	return ret;
>  }


Can the label “err_put_device” be more appropriate for the improved
function implementation?
(Or: Would you like to omit the prefix “err_” for these jump targets?)

Regards,
Markus