linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] simplify ufshcd with the guard() macro

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]

Message-ID: <2bbd7e84-aee3-4c36-9cae-791b4f4d5a82@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:16:00 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
 "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] simplify ufshcd with the guard() macro

On 4/16/24 03:23, Avri Altman wrote:
> We can simplify the code with the guard() macro and co for  automatic
> cleanup of locks. For making changes easier, this series is divided to
> per-lock type patches and only address the ufshcd module. There are
> still a few remaining explicit lock/unlock calls, and those are for the
> places where we do temporary unlock/relock, which doesn't fit well with
> the guard(), so far.

Why to use only the existing primitives? Several error paths could be 
eliminated if new macros would be included for e.g. automatically
calling ufshcd_release() at the end of a scope.

Bart.