linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 21/28] leds: lm3697: Make error handling more robust

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 May 2021 13:50:57 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy <mallikarjunax.reddy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>,
        Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@...il.com>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 21/28] leds: lm3697: Make error handling more robust

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2021-05-10 12:50:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > It's easy to miss necessary clean up, e.g. firmware node reference counting,
> > during error path in ->probe(). Make it more robust by moving to a single
> > point of return.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> 
> You are now putting the handle even in the success case. Is that
> right?

Let's put it this way: it's no-op in successful case.

But yeah, I would prefer to have a separate case for error, I'll revisit this.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko