netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] bnxt_fwctl: Add bnxt fwctl device

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: <CALs4sv0GMBZvhocPr4DTUu0ECFCazEb8Db6ms9SwO9CVPzBNVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:01:24 +0530
From: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: jgg@...pe.ca, michael.chan@...adcom.com, saeedm@...dia.com, 
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, davem@...emloft.net, corbet@....net, 
	edumazet@...gle.com, gospo@...adcom.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, 
	selvin.xavier@...adcom.com, leon@...nel.org, 
	kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] bnxt_fwctl: Add bnxt fwctl device

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 4:02 AM Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com> wrote:
>

> > +static void *bnxtctl_fw_rpc(struct fwctl_uctx *uctx,
> > +                         enum fwctl_rpc_scope scope,
> > +                         void *in, size_t in_len, size_t *out_len)
> > +{
> > +     struct bnxtctl_dev *bnxtctl =
> > +             container_of(uctx->fwctl, struct bnxtctl_dev, fwctl);
> > +     struct bnxt_aux_priv *bnxt_aux_priv = bnxtctl->aux_priv;
> > +     struct fwctl_dma_info_bnxt *dma_buf = NULL;
> > +     struct device *dev = &uctx->fwctl->dev;
> > +     struct fwctl_rpc_bnxt *msg = in;
> > +     struct bnxt_fw_msg rpc_in;
> > +     int i, rc, err = 0;
> > +     int dma_buf_size;
> > +
> > +     rpc_in.msg = kzalloc(msg->req_len, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> I think if you use __free(kfree) for all the allocations in the function, you can be rid of the gotos.
>
Thanks Dave for the review. Would you be fine if I defer using scope
based cleanup for later?
I need some time to understand the mechanism better and correctly
define the macros as some
pointers holding the memory are members within a stack variable. I
will fix the goto/free issues
you highlighted in the next revision. I hope that is going to be OK?