linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Put fwnode in error case during ->probe()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdFih-TMWXWXr9vnDJkBDBb7K7yv3rfUP6T0HF2SAMGHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:51:48 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Put fwnode in error
 case during ->probe()

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:49 PM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:29:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Heikki Krogerus
> > <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:09:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > device_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > >  err_remove_ports:
> > > > +     fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be more clear to do that in the condition that jumps to
> > > this lable?
> >
> > In this case it doesn't matter. As a general pattern, no, because this
> > will help to keep this in mind in complex error handling ladders. That
> > said, I prefer my variant unless there is a strong opinion to move it
> > into the conditional.
>
> Now it looks like you are releasing the mux device fwnode instead of a
> port fwnode because everything else related to the ports is destroyed
> in below loop. That's too confusing.
>
> Just handle it inside the condition, and the whole thing becomes
> clear.

I see your point, okay, I will update in v2.
Thanks for your review!

> > > >       for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) {
> > > >               typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw);
> > > >               typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko