linux-kernel - Re: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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8470436.7edc.1816d03e9c2.Coremail.windhl@126.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 22:56:21 +0800 (CST)
From:   "Liang He" <windhl@....com>
To:     "Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     "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>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] arch: powerpc: platforms: 85xx: Add missing
 of_node_put in sgy_cts1000.c





At 2022-06-16 22:49:36, "Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>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.

Thanks for your valuable advice, I will resend a new patch for that.


>
>>                  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
>>