linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe failure/removal

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, 23 May 2024 22:11:20 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
 Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
 Thippeswamy Havalige <thippeswamy.havalige@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe
 failure/removal

>> …
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
>> …
>>> @@ -817,11 +818,23 @@ static int nwl_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  		err = nwl_pcie_enable_msi(pcie);
>>>  		if (err < 0) {
>>>  			dev_err(dev, "failed to enable MSI support: %d\n", err);
>>> -			return err;
>>> +			goto err_clk;
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>
>>> -	return pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>> +	err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>> +
>>> +err_clk:
>>> +	if (err)
>>> +		clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
>>
>> I suggest to use the label “disable_unprepare_clock” directly before this function call
>> (in the if branch) so that a duplicate check would be avoided after some error cases.
>
> Well if you want to avoid a check, we can just do
>
> err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
> if (!err)
> 	return 0;
>
> err_clk:
> 	...

This design variant can also be reasonable.

Do any preferences matter here for label name selections?

Regards,
Markus