On Thu, 2021-04-29 at 15:03 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:50:50 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > Actually, I think this is a better fix to avoid multiple put and > > returns. > > > > James > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > index d225ad140960..cbf2a932577b 100644 > > --- a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > +++ b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > @@ -336,9 +336,9 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip, > > rc = -EPERM; > > } > > if (blob_len < 0) > > - return blob_len; > > - > > - payload->blob_len = blob_len; > > + rc = blob_len; > > + else > > + payload->blob_len = blob_len; > > > > tpm_put_ops(chip); > > return rc; > > Ah, that does look better. I had first added a new label, but that > didn't seem like an improvement in readability. I grabbed this > pattern from an early return earlier in the function. But given that > this is the end (and appears to be unlikely to have more logic > inserted in the future), this seems more reasonable to me as well. Do > you want me to respin or just let it up to you at this point? Can you respin? ... I'm a bit lossy at the moment due to pressure of work. Thanks, James
