linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] staging: rtl8723bs: os_dep: simplify the return statement

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:48:50 +0530
From:   Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, fabioaiuto83@...il.com,
        ross.schm.dev@...il.com, marcocesati@...il.com,
        insafonov@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     saurav.girepunje@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: rtl8723bs: os_dep: simplify the return
 statement



On 15/10/21 2:45 pm, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 4:40:00 PM CEST Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> Remove goto statement where function simply return value without doing
>> any cleanup action.
>>
>> Simplify the return using goto label to avoid unneeded 'if' condition
>> check.
>>
>> Remove the unneeded and redundant check of variable on goto.
>>
>> Remove the assignment of NULL on local variable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> ChangeLog V3:
>>
>> 	-Remove goto statement where function simply return value
>> 	 without doing any cleanup action.
>> 	-Remove the assignment of NULL on local variable.
>> 	-Replace the goto statement added after the memcpy on V2.
>> 	 with return 0 statement.
>>
>> ChangeLog V2:
>>
>> 	-Add goto out after the memcpy for no error case return with
>> 	 ret only. On V1 doing free, which was not required for no error
>> 	 case.
> 
> You still don't explain why you changed v1. You had freed resources on 
> success path. 
"On V1 doing free" I will add more information on changelog.
That was not allowed because you introduced a change in the 
> logic and a huge bug. Therefore, in v2, you are not merely changing something 
> that "was not required". Instead you are changing something that is not 
> permitted.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio
> 
> 
> 
Thanks Fabio for review.

Regards,
Saurav