Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 23:35:04 +0300
From:   Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: change order inside nfc_se_io error path
Message-ID: <20230306203504.3qg7ewfhypd3ljdt@fpc>
References: <20230304164844.133931-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
 <7370a80b-56f9-a858-ff05-5ba9d7206c8c@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7370a80b-56f9-a858-ff05-5ba9d7206c8c@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:28:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/03/2023 17:48, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> > cb_context should be freed on error paths in nfc_se_io as stated by commit
> > 25ff6f8a5a3b ("nfc: fix memory leak of se_io context in nfc_genl_se_io").
> > 
> > Make the error path in nfc_se_io unwind everything in reverse order, i.e.
> > free the cb_context after unlocking the device.
> > 
> > No functional changes intended - only adjusting to good coding practice.
> 
> I would argue that it is functional. Running code in or outside of
> critical section/locks is quite functional change.
> 

Hmm, actually, yes. I'll resend v2 with changed commit info as 'no
functional changes' statement can probably be misunderstood later.

Should this patch be backported by the way? It doesn't seem to fix any
real issue but, as you mentioned, it contains some functional changes
which may be of some importance in future.