linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Removed unnecessary varibles

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: <ea09f455-a00f-a13d-29d8-e3f9790dba56@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:08:03 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Adam <developer@...sty.dev>, bkkarthik@...u.pes.edu,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Removed unnecessary varibles

On 4/22/21 12:03 PM, Anupama K Patil wrote:
> de, e are two variables of the type 'struct proc_dir_entry'
> which can be removed to save memory. This also fixes a coding style
> issue reported by checkpatch where we are suggested to make assignment
> outside the if statement.
> 

Sounds like a reasonable change.

> Signed-off-by: Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c | 13 ++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> index 785a796430fa..1ae458c02656 100644
> --- a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> @@ -57,21 +57,20 @@ static const struct proc_ops isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops = {
>   static int isapnp_proc_attach_device(struct pnp_dev *dev)
>   {
>   	struct pnp_card *bus = dev->card;
> -	struct proc_dir_entry *de, *e;
>   	char name[16];
>   
> -	if (!(de = bus->procdir)) {
> +	if (!bus->procdir) {
>   		sprintf(name, "%02x", bus->number);

It would make sense to change this to scnprintf()

> -		de = bus->procdir = proc_mkdir(name, isapnp_proc_bus_dir);
> -		if (!de)
> +		bus->procdir = proc_mkdir(name, isapnp_proc_bus_dir);
> +		if (!bus->procdir)
>   			return -ENOMEM;
>   	}
>   	sprintf(name, "%02x", dev->number);

It would make sense to change this to scnprintf()

> -	e = dev->procent = proc_create_data(name, S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, de,
> +	dev->procent = proc_create_data(name, S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, bus->procdir,
>   					    &isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops, dev);
> -	if (!e)
> +	if (!dev->procent)
>   		return -ENOMEM;

Shouldn't the procdir be deleted when proc_create_data() fails?

> -	proc_set_size(e, 256);
> +	proc_set_size(dev->procent, 256);
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> 

Note that isapnp_proc_init() doesn't check isapnp_proc_attach_device()
return and handle errors and cleanup.

thanks,
-- Shuah