linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 12/38] coco: host: arm64: CCA host platform device driver

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: <yq5ao6t29hrk.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 14:28:55 +0530
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aik@....com,
	lukas@...ner.de, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>,
	Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 12/38] coco: host: arm64: CCA host platform
 device driver

Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> writes:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:21:49 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org> wrote:
>

...

>> +
>> +#include "rmm-da.h"
>> +
>> +/* Number of streams that we can support at the hostbridge level */
>> +#define CCA_HB_PLATFORM_STREAMS 4
>> +
>> +/* Total number of stream id supported at root port level */
>> +#define MAX_STREAM_ID	256
>> +
>> +DEFINE_FREE(vfree, void *, if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(_T)) vfree(_T))
>> +static struct pci_tsm *cca_tsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	int rc;
>> +	struct pci_host_bridge *hb;
>> +	struct cca_host_dsc_pf0 *dsc_pf0 __free(vfree) = NULL;
>
> Read the stuff in cleanup.h and work out why this needs
> changing to be inline below and not use this NULL pattern here
> (unless you like grumpy Linus ;)
>
> Note that with the err_out, even if you do that you'll still be
> breaking with the guidance doc (and actually causing undefined
> behavior :)  Get rid of those gotos if you want to use __free()
>
>

I’ve already fixed up similar cases by removing the goto based on cleanup.h
docs in other functions.I must have missed this one.

By the way, isn't using the `NULL` pattern acceptable when there are
no additional lock variables involved (ie, unwind order doesn't matter)?
Or should we always follow the pattern below regardless?

	struct cca_host_dsc_pf0 *dsc_pf0 __free(vfree) =
		vcalloc(sizeof(*dsc_pf0), GFP_KERNEL);

-aneesh