Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-32519-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:30:02 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Gro=DF?= <jgross@suse.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/xen: Add some null pointer checking to smp.c
Message-ID: <dfb6de51-3ebc-41fc-a750-cf5ca2ac05aa@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240117090018.152031-1-chentao@kylinos.cn>
 <1705655941162581.825.seg@mailgw>
 <517fae75-c4e7-4576-81ff-6a14a3eb9cd7@kylinos.cn>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <517fae75-c4e7-4576-81ff-6a14a3eb9cd7@kylinos.cn>

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:22:25PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> On 2024/1/17 18:40, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > kasprintf() returns a pointer to dynamically allocated memory
> > > which can be NULL upon failure. Ensure the allocation was successful
> > > by checking the pointer validity.
> > …
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> > > @@ -61,10 +61,14 @@ void xen_smp_intr_free(unsigned int cpu)
> > > 
> > >   int xen_smp_intr_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > >   {
> > > -	int rc;
> > > +	int rc = 0;
> > 
> > I find the indication of a successful function execution sufficient by
> > the statement “return 0;” at the end.
> > How do you think about to omit such an extra variable initialisation?
> Thanks, it's no need now. I'll remove it in v3.

This advice is good.  Don't do unnecessary assignments.

> > 
> > 
> > >   	char *resched_name, *callfunc_name, *debug_name;
> > > 
> > >   	resched_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "resched%d", cpu);
> > > +	if (!resched_name) {
> > > +		rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > +		goto fail;
> > > +	}
> > >   	per_cpu(xen_resched_irq, cpu).name = resched_name;
> > >   	rc = bind_ipi_to_irqhandler(XEN_RESCHEDULE_VECTOR,
> > >   				    cpu,
> > 
> > You propose to apply the same error code in four if branches.
> > I suggest to avoid the specification of duplicate assignment statements
> > for this purpose.
> > How do you think about to use another label like “e_nomem”?
> I'll add a new label to simply the code.

I'm not a Xen maintainer so I can't really comment on their style
choices.  However, as one of the kernel-janitors list people, I would
say that not everyone agrees with Markus's style preferences.  Markus
was banned from the list for a while, but we unbanned everyone when we
transitioned to the new list infrastructure.  Do a search on lore to
find out more.  https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=Elfring

Perhaps wait for feedback from the maintainers for how to proceed?

regards,
dan carpenter