linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] ALSA: virtio: PCM substream operators

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: <s5h35xkquvj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:55:44 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Anton Yakovlev <anton.yakovlev@...nsynergy.com>
Cc:     <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] ALSA: virtio: PCM substream operators

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:34:41 +0100,
Anton Yakovlev wrote:
> +static int virtsnd_pcm_open(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> +{
> +	struct virtio_pcm *vpcm = snd_pcm_substream_chip(substream);
> +	struct virtio_pcm_substream *vss = NULL;
> +
> +	if (vpcm) {
> +		switch (substream->stream) {
> +		case SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK:
> +		case SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE: {

The switch() here looks superfluous.  The substream->stream must be a
good value in the callback.  If any, you can put WARN_ON() there, but
I don't think it worth.

> +static int virtsnd_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> +				 struct snd_pcm_hw_params *hw_params)
> +{
....
> +	return virtsnd_pcm_msg_alloc(vss, periods, period_bytes);

We have the allocation, but...

> +static int virtsnd_pcm_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> +{
> +	return 0;

... no release at hw_free()?
I know that the free is present in the allocator, but it's only for
re-allocation case, I suppose.


thanks,

Takashi