linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch: powerpc: platforms: 85xx: Add missing of_node_put in sgy

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:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:49:36 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Liang He <windhl@....com>, "oss@...error.net" <oss@...error.net>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>
CC:     "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: powerpc: platforms: 85xx: Add missing of_node_put
 in sgy_cts1000.c



Le 15/06/2022 à 14:07, Liang He a écrit :
> [You don't often get email from windhl@....com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liang He <windhl@....com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c | 10 ++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c
> index 98ae64075193..2a45b30852b2 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c
> @@ -85,17 +85,24 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>          /* Technically we could just read the first one, but punish
>           * DT writers for invalid form. */
>          if (of_gpio_count(halt_node) != 1)
> +       {
> +               of_node_put(halt_node);

Duplicating the same code at multiple exit points is bad practice.

If you can't do a simple 'return' exit, you should use 'goto' to a 
common error path exit.

>                  return -EINVAL;
> +       }
> 
>          /* Get the gpio number relative to the dynamic base. */
>          gpio = of_get_gpio_flags(halt_node, 0, &flags);
>          if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio))
> +       {
> +               of_node_put(halt_node);
>                  return -EINVAL;
> +       }
> 
>          err = gpio_request(gpio, "gpio-halt");
>          if (err) {
>                  printk(KERN_ERR "gpio-halt: error requesting GPIO %d.\n",
>                         gpio);
> +               of_node_put(halt_node);
>                  halt_node = NULL;
>                  return err;
>          }
> @@ -112,6 +119,7 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                  printk(KERN_ERR "gpio-halt: error requesting IRQ %d for "
>                         "GPIO %d.\n", irq, gpio);
>                  gpio_free(gpio);
> +               of_node_put(halt_node);
>                  halt_node = NULL;
>                  return err;
>          }
> @@ -123,6 +131,8 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>          printk(KERN_INFO "gpio-halt: registered GPIO %d (%d trigger, %d"
>                 " irq).\n", gpio, trigger, irq);
> 
> +       of_node_put(halt_node);
> +
>          return 0;
>   }
> 
> --
> 2.25.1
>