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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 20:42:25 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Huazhong Tan <tanhuazhong@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] net: hns3: Destroy a mutex after initialisation
 failure in hclge_init_ad_dev()

> Add a mutex destroy call in hclge_init_ae_dev() when fails.

How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   Change description:
   The function “mutex_init” was called before a call of
   the function “hclge_pci_init”.
   But the function “mutex_destroy” was not called after initialisation
   steps failed.
   Thus add the missed function call for the completion of
   the exception handling.


Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?


…
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_main.c
> @@ -10108,6 +10108,7 @@ static int hclge_init_ae_dev(struct hnae3_ae_dev *ae_dev)
>  	pci_release_regions(pdev);
>  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
>  out:
> +	mutex_destroy(&hdev->vport_lock);
>  	return ret;
>  }

How do you think about to use the label “destroy_mutex” instead?

Regards,
Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists