[PATCH 0/2] net/iucv: Adjustments for iucv_enable()

[PATCH 0/2] net/iucv: Adjustments for iucv_enable()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:52:12 +0100

A few update suggestions were taken into account
from static source code analysis.

Markus Elfring (2):
  Improve unlocking
  Improve error handling

 net/iucv/iucv.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:15:11 +0100

* Add a label so that a call of the function “cpus_read_unlock”
  is stored only once in this function implementation.

* Replace one call at the end by a goto statement.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 net/iucv/iucv.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
index 0ed6e34d6edd..71ba309e05ee 100644
--- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
+++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
@@ -555,13 +555,16 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
 	if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
 		/* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
 		goto out;
+
+	rc = 0;
+unlock:
 	cpus_read_unlock();
-	return 0;
+	return rc;
+
 out:
 	kfree(iucv_path_table);
 	iucv_path_table = NULL;
-	cpus_read_unlock();
-	return rc;
+	goto unlock;
 }

 /*
--
2.43.0

[PATCH 2/2] net/iucv: Improve error handling in iucv_enable()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:44:46 +0100

The kfree() function was called in one case during error handling
even if the passed variable contained a null pointer.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

* Thus achieve an unlock operation by using the corresponding label.

* Move two error code assignments to other places.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 net/iucv/iucv.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
index 71ba309e05ee..09e78a57bab8 100644
--- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
+++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
@@ -543,13 +543,14 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
 	int cpu, rc;

 	cpus_read_lock();
-	rc = -ENOMEM;
 	alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path);
 	iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!iucv_path_table)
-		goto out;
+	if (!iucv_path_table) {
+		rc = -ENOMEM;
+		goto unlock;
+	}
+
 	/* Declare per cpu buffers. */
-	rc = -EIO;
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1);
 	if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
@@ -564,6 +565,7 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
 out:
 	kfree(iucv_path_table);
 	iucv_path_table = NULL;
+	rc = -EIO;
 	goto unlock;
 }

--
2.43.0

RE: [EXT] [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Suman Ghosh]

@@ -555,13 +555,16 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
> 	if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
> 		/* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
> 		goto out;
>+
>+	rc = 0;
>+unlock:
> 	cpus_read_unlock();
>-	return 0;
>+	return rc;
>+
> out:
> 	kfree(iucv_path_table);
> 	iucv_path_table = NULL;
>-	cpus_read_unlock();
>-	return rc;
>+	goto unlock;
[Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the original change?
> }
>
> /*
>--
>2.43.0
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Markus Elfring]

> @@ -555,13 +555,16 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
>> 	if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
>> 		/* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
>> 		goto out;
>> +
>> +	rc = 0;
>> +unlock:
>> 	cpus_read_unlock();
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return rc;
>> +
>> out:
>> 	kfree(iucv_path_table);
>> 	iucv_path_table = NULL;
>> -	cpus_read_unlock();
>> -	return rc;
>> +	goto unlock;
> [Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the original change?

I propose to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls
(in the source code).

Regards,
Markus

RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Suman Ghosh]

>>> 	if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
>>> 		/* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
>>> 		goto out;
>>> +
>>> +	rc = 0;
>>> +unlock:
>>> 	cpus_read_unlock();
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return rc;
>>> +
>>> out:
>>> 	kfree(iucv_path_table);
>>> 	iucv_path_table = NULL;
>>> -	cpus_read_unlock();
>>> -	return rc;
>>> +	goto unlock;
>> [Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the
>original change?
>
>I propose to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (in the
>source code).
>
>Regards,
>Markus
[Suman] Then I think we should do something like this. Changing the code flow back-and-forth using "goto" does not seem correct.

static int iucv_enable(void)
{
        size_t alloc_size;
        int cpu, rc = 0;

        cpus_read_lock();
        alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path);
        iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!iucv_path_table) {
                rc = -ENOMEM;
                goto out;
        }

        /* Declare per cpu buffers. */
        for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
                smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1);
        if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
                /* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
                rc = -EIO;

out:
        if (rc) {
                kfree(iucv_path_table); //kfree is itself NULL protected. So, kzalloc failure should also be handled.
                iucv_path_table = NULL;
        }

        cpus_read_unlock();
        return rc;
}

Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Alexandra Winter]

On 02.01.24 09:27, Suman Ghosh wrote:
>>> [Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the
>> original change?
>>
>> I propose to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (in the
>> source code).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Markus
> [Suman] Then I think we should do something like this. Changing the code flow back-and-forth using "goto" does not seem correct.

I share Suman's concern that jumping backwards goto is confusing.
But I think the Coccinelle finding of freeing a null-pointer should be addressed (see patch 2/2)
Thank you Markus for reporting it.

The allocation does require holding the cpus_read_lock. 
For some reason Markus wants to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (why?),
so what about something like this for both issues:

diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
index 0ed6e34d6edd..1030403b826b 100644
--- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
+++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
@@ -542,24 +542,22 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
        size_t alloc_size;
        int cpu, rc;

-       cpus_read_lock();
-       rc = -ENOMEM;
        alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path);
        iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!iucv_path_table)
-               goto out;
+               return -ENOMEM;
        /* Declare per cpu buffers. */
-       rc = -EIO;
+       cpus_read_lock();
        for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
                smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1);
-       if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
+       if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) {
                /* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
-               goto out;
-       cpus_read_unlock();
-       return 0;
-out:
-       kfree(iucv_path_table);
-       iucv_path_table = NULL;
+               kfree(iucv_path_table);
+               iucv_path_table = NULL;
+               rc = -EIO;
+       } else {
+               rc = 0;
+       }
        cpus_read_unlock();
        return rc;
 }

Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

[Markus Elfring]

> I share Suman's concern that jumping backwards goto is confusing.
> But I think the Coccinelle finding of freeing a null-pointer should be addressed (see patch 2/2)
> Thank you Markus for reporting it.
>
> The allocation does require holding the cpus_read_lock.

How does this information fit to your following suggestion to adjust the lock scope?


> For some reason Markus wants to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (why?),

One cpus_read_unlock() call is required here.
Would you like to benefit more from a smaller executable code size?


> so what about something like this for both issues:
>
> diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
> index 0ed6e34d6edd..1030403b826b 100644
> --- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
> +++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
> @@ -542,24 +542,22 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
>         size_t alloc_size;
>         int cpu, rc;
>
> -       cpus_read_lock();
> -       rc = -ENOMEM;
>         alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path);
>         iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
>         if (!iucv_path_table)
> -               goto out;
> +               return -ENOMEM;
>         /* Declare per cpu buffers. */
> -       rc = -EIO;
> +       cpus_read_lock();
>         for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>                 smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1);
> -       if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
> +       if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) {
>                 /* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
> -               goto out;
> -       cpus_read_unlock();
> -       return 0;
> -out:
> -       kfree(iucv_path_table);
> -       iucv_path_table = NULL;
> +               kfree(iucv_path_table);
> +               iucv_path_table = NULL;
> +               rc = -EIO;
> +       } else {
> +               rc = 0;
> +       }
>         cpus_read_unlock();
>         return rc;
>  }


I suggest to reconsider patch squashing a bit more.

Regards,
Markus