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

Message-ID: <9815ef2d-d0da-d197-49d7-83559d750ff1@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:40:12 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        "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

>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/scsi/virtio_scsi.c?id=42f82040ee66db13525dc6f14b8559890b2f4c1c#n980
>>
>>  	if (!virtscsi_cmd_cache) {
>>  		pr_err("kmem_cache_create() for virtscsi_cmd_cache failed\n");
>> -		goto error;
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>  	}
>
> Could be doable, but I don't see a particular benefit.

Can a bit more “compliance” (with the Linux coding style) matter here?


> Having a single error loop is an advantage by itself.

I do not see that a loop is involved in the implementation of the function “init”.


>> destroy_pool:
>> 	mempool_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_pool);
>> 	virtscsi_cmd_pool = NULL;
>> destroy_cache:
>> 	kmem_cache_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_cache);
>> 	virtscsi_cmd_cache = NULL;
>> 	return ret;
>
> ... while there's no advantage in this.

I propose again to improve the affected exception handling another bit
by using appropriate labels.
Will further software improvements be achieved by a corresponding patch series?

Regards,
Markus