linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: virtio_scsi: Remove unnecessary condition checks

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a197f532-7020-0d8e-21bf-42bb66e8daec@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:16:01 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Xianting Tian <xianting_tian@....com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E. J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: virtio_scsi: Remove unnecessary condition checks

> kmem_cache_destroy and mempool_destroy can correctly handle
> null pointer parameter, so there is no need to check if the
> parameter is null before calling kmem_cache_destroy and
> mempool_destroy.

Can another imperative wording be preferred for the change description?


…
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/virtio_scsi.c
> @@ -1003,14 +1003,10 @@ static int __init init(void)
>  	return 0;
>
>  error:

Can such a label be questionable?


…
> +	mempool_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_pool);
> +	virtscsi_cmd_pool = NULL;
> +	kmem_cache_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_cache);
> +	virtscsi_cmd_cache = NULL;
>  	return ret;
>  }

How do you think about to add a jump target so that the execution
of a few statements can be avoided according to a previous
null pointer check?

Regards,
Markus