linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: os

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:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 14:01:24 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        straube.linux@...il.com, martin@...ser.cx,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        saurav.girepunje@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: os_dep: remove the goto statement

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 11:40:18PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> Remove the goto statement from rtw_init_drv_sw(). In this function goto
> can be replace by return statement. As on goto label exit, function
> only return it is not performing any cleanup. Avoiding goto will
> improve the function readability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c | 39 +++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c
> index 1418c9c4916c..4b409479108e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c
> @@ -480,48 +480,34 @@ u8 rtw_init_drv_sw(struct adapter *padapter)
>  {
>  	u8	ret8 = _SUCCESS;
> 
> -	if ((rtw_init_cmd_priv(&padapter->cmdpriv)) == _FAIL) {
> -		ret8 = _FAIL;
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
> +	if (!rtw_init_cmd_priv(&padapter->cmdpriv))
> +		return _FAIL;
> 
>  	padapter->cmdpriv.padapter = padapter;
> 
> -	if ((rtw_init_evt_priv(&padapter->evtpriv)) == _FAIL) {
> -		ret8 = _FAIL;
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (rtw_init_mlme_priv(padapter) == _FAIL) {
> -		ret8 = _FAIL;
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
> +	if (!rtw_init_evt_priv(&padapter->evtpriv) || !rtw_init_mlme_priv(padapter))
> +		return _FAIL;

These are functions that are being called so keeping them separate as
the code you removed did makes it "obvious" what is happening here.

So can you keep it that way please?

But my larger question is do these functions create state or allocate
memory that needs to be unwound properly if an error does happen?  Right
now the function seems to not be doing that at all, but that does not
mean it is correct as-is...

thanks,

greg k-h