From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: potential uninitialized variable in probe()
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:14:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190613081419.GG1893@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613074922.GB21113@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:49:22PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:58:15PM -0700, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "drvdata->atclk" clock is optional, but if it gets set to an error
> > pointer then we're accidentally return an uninitialized variable instead
> > of success.
>
> You are right, thanks a lot for pointing out.
>
> I'd like to initialize 'ret = 0' at the head of function, so we can
> has the same fashion with other CoreSight drivers (e.g. replicator).
>
> static int funnel_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *res)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> If you agree, could you send a new patch for this?
Obviously that's an option I considered... The reason I didn't go with
that is that a common bug that I see is:
int ret = 0;
p = kmalloc();
if (!p)
goto free_whatever;
In my experience it's better to initialize the return as late as
possible so that you get static checker warnings when you forget to set
the error code.
Also I think my way is more readable. I like to make the success path
as explicit as possible. I hate when people do things like:
if (!ret)
return ret;
About 10% of the time when you see this it is a bug, but it's hard to
tell because it's not readable like it would be if people did:
if (!ret)
return 0;
Or sometimes you see things like:
if (corner_case)
goto free; /* success path */
Without the "/* success path */ comment explaining why we're returning
zero most readers will assume it's a mistake.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: potential uninitialized variable in probe()
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190613081419.GG1893@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613074922.GB21113@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:49:22PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:58:15PM -0700, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "drvdata->atclk" clock is optional, but if it gets set to an error
> > pointer then we're accidentally return an uninitialized variable instead
> > of success.
>
> You are right, thanks a lot for pointing out.
>
> I'd like to initialize 'ret = 0' at the head of function, so we can
> has the same fashion with other CoreSight drivers (e.g. replicator).
>
> static int funnel_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *res)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> If you agree, could you send a new patch for this?
Obviously that's an option I considered... The reason I didn't go with
that is that a common bug that I see is:
int ret = 0;
p = kmalloc();
if (!p)
goto free_whatever;
In my experience it's better to initialize the return as late as
possible so that you get static checker warnings when you forget to set
the error code.
Also I think my way is more readable. I like to make the success path
as explicit as possible. I hate when people do things like:
if (!ret)
return ret;
About 10% of the time when you see this it is a bug, but it's hard to
tell because it's not readable like it would be if people did:
if (!ret)
return 0;
Or sometimes you see things like:
if (corner_case)
goto free; /* success path */
Without the "/* success path */ comment explaining why we're returning
zero most readers will assume it's a mistake.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: potential uninitialized variable in probe()
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190613081419.GG1893@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613074922.GB21113@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:49:22PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:58:15PM -0700, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "drvdata->atclk" clock is optional, but if it gets set to an error
> > pointer then we're accidentally return an uninitialized variable instead
> > of success.
>
> You are right, thanks a lot for pointing out.
>
> I'd like to initialize 'ret = 0' at the head of function, so we can
> has the same fashion with other CoreSight drivers (e.g. replicator).
>
> static int funnel_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *res)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> If you agree, could you send a new patch for this?
Obviously that's an option I considered... The reason I didn't go with
that is that a common bug that I see is:
int ret = 0;
p = kmalloc();
if (!p)
goto free_whatever;
In my experience it's better to initialize the return as late as
possible so that you get static checker warnings when you forget to set
the error code.
Also I think my way is more readable. I like to make the success path
as explicit as possible. I hate when people do things like:
if (!ret)
return ret;
About 10% of the time when you see this it is a bug, but it's hard to
tell because it's not readable like it would be if people did:
if (!ret)
return 0;
Or sometimes you see things like:
if (corner_case)
goto free; /* success path */
Without the "/* success path */ comment explaining why we're returning
zero most readers will assume it's a mistake.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-13 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 6:58 [PATCH] coresight: potential uninitialized variable in probe() Dan Carpenter
2019-06-13 6:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2019-06-13 6:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2019-06-13 7:49 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 7:49 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 7:49 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 8:14 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2019-06-13 8:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2019-06-13 8:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2019-06-13 9:56 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 9:56 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 9:56 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 10:10 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 10:10 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-13 10:10 ` Leo Yan
2019-06-17 19:27 ` Mathieu Poirier
2019-06-17 19:27 ` Mathieu Poirier
2019-06-17 19:27 ` Mathieu Poirier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190613081419.GG1893@kadam \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.