On Friday 28 July 2017 01:18 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:27:33PM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: >> + new_drvdata->cc_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&plat_dev->dev, >> + req_mem_cc_regs); >> + if (IS_ERR(new_drvdata->cc_base)) { >> + rc = PTR_ERR(new_drvdata->cc_base); >> goto init_cc_res_err; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (This code was in the original and not introduced by the patch.) Hi Dan, the above lines of code were not in the original except "goto init_cc_res_err;" which was doing the error handling at different places. This patch has added those first three lines. I was constantly checking the latest linux-next and staging-testing / next git trees. > > Ideally, the goto name should say what the goto does. In this case it > does everything. Unfortunately trying to do everything is very > complicated so obviously the error handling is going to be full of bugs. > > The first thing the error handling does is: > > ssi_aead_free(new_drvdata); > > But this function assumes that if new_drvdata->aead_handle is non-NULL > then that means we have called: > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&aead_handle->aead_list); > > That assumption is false if the aead_handle->sram_workspace_addr > allocation fails. It can't actually fail in the current code... So > that's good, I suppose. Reviewing this code is really hard, because I > have to jump back and forth through several functions in different > files. > > Moving on two the second error handling function: > > ssi_hash_free(new_drvdata); > > This one has basically the same assumption that if ->hash_handle is > allocated that means we called: > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hash_handle->hash_list); > > That assumption is not true if ssi_hash_init_sram_digest_consts(drvdata); > fails. That function can fail in real life. Except the the error > handling in ssi_hash_alloc() sets ->hash_handle to NULL. So the bug is > just a leak and not a crashing bug. > > I've reviewed the first two lines of the error handling just to give a > feel for how complicated "do everything" style error handling is to > review. > > The better way to do error handling is: > 1) Only free things which have been allocated. > 2) The unwind code should mirror the wind up code. > 3) Every allocation function should have a free function. > 4) Label names should tell you what the goto does. > 5) Use direct returns and literals where possible. > 6) Generally it's better to keep the error path and the success path > separate. > 7) Do error handling as opposed to success handling. > > one = alloc(); > if (!one) > return -ENOMEM; > if (foo) { > two = alloc(); > if (!two) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto free_one; > } > } > three = alloc(); > if (!three) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto free_two; > } > ... > > return 0; > > free_two: > if (foo) > free(two); > free_one: > free(one); > > return ret; > > This style of error handling is easier to review. You only need to > remember the most recent thing that you have allocated. You can tell > from the goto that it frees it so you don't have to scroll to the > bottom of the function or jump to a different file. I understand, its make sense, may be we should come up with something better and simpler. Thanks Suniel > > regards, > dan carpenter > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel