linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] bus: stm32_firewall: Use scoped allocation to simplify cleanup

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: <fe8bdea9-4bd2-4200-8b7c-3c231dc6dcb2@foss.st.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:37:55 +0100
From: Gatien CHEVALLIER <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>,
        "Bjorn
 Andersson" <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue
	<alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] bus: stm32_firewall: Use scoped allocation to
 simplify cleanup

On 1/5/26 15:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Allocate the memory with scoped/cleanup.h to reduce error handling and
> make the code a bit simpler.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v2:
> 1. New patch
> ---
>   drivers/bus/stm32_firewall.c | 10 +++-------
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/stm32_firewall.c b/drivers/bus/stm32_firewall.c
> index fae881cea9a0..92414a4c7bb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/stm32_firewall.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/stm32_firewall.c
> @@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(stm32_firewall_controller_unregister);
>   
>   int stm32_firewall_populate_bus(struct stm32_firewall_controller *firewall_controller)
>   {
> -	struct stm32_firewall *firewalls;
>   	struct device *parent;
>   	unsigned int i;
>   	int len;
> @@ -257,15 +256,14 @@ int stm32_firewall_populate_bus(struct stm32_firewall_controller *firewall_contr
>   		if (len <= 0)
>   			return -EINVAL;
>   
> -		firewalls = kcalloc(len, sizeof(*firewalls), GFP_KERNEL);
> +		struct stm32_firewall *firewalls __free(kfree) =
> +			kcalloc(len, sizeof(*firewalls), GFP_KERNEL);

Hello,

I'd prefer to keep declarations separated.

Otherwise:

Tested-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>

Thank you,

Gatien

>   		if (!firewalls)
>   			return -ENOMEM;
>   
>   		err = stm32_firewall_get_firewall(child, firewalls, (unsigned int)len);
> -		if (err) {
> -			kfree(firewalls);
> +		if (err)
>   			return err;
> -		}
>   
>   		for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>   			if (firewall_controller->grant_access(firewall_controller,
> @@ -279,8 +277,6 @@ int stm32_firewall_populate_bus(struct stm32_firewall_controller *firewall_contr
>   					child->full_name);
>   			}
>   		}
> -
> -		kfree(firewalls);
>   	}
>   
>   	return 0;