Re: [heads-up] Re: [PATCH] reset: Further simplify locking with guard()
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Date: 2024-09-30 15:22:37
Also in:
lkml
On So, 2024-09-29 at 20:48 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 29/09/2024 00:27, Al Viro wrote:quoted
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 04:02:32PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:quoted
Use guard(mutex) to automatically unlock mutexes when going out of scope. Simplify error paths by removing a goto and manual mutex unlocking in multiple places.And that, folks, is a live example of the reasons why guard() is an attractive nuisance. We really need a very loud warning on cleanup.h stuff - otherwise such patches from well-meaning folks will keep coming.
Thank you for the analysis. It think I'll drop this entirely. [...]
quoted
Guess what happens if you take goto out_put prior to the entire thing, in ret = __reset_add_reset_gpio_device(&args); if (ret) { rstc = ERR_PTR(ret); goto out_put; } That patch adds implicit mutex_unlock() at the points where we leave the scope. Which extends to the end of function. In other words, there is one downstream of out_put, turning any goto out_put upstream of guard() into a bug.cleanup.h also mentions that one should do not mix cleanup with existing goto, because of possibility of above issue.
Yes, d5934e76316e ("cleanup: Add usage and style documentation"), last
paragraph.
But except careful review, this patch should have been simply compile tested which would point to the issue above. Any guard/scope works must be checked with clang W=1, which reports jumps over init.
Thank you, I was missing a CC=clang W=1 build in my pre-flight checks. That's fixed now. regards Philipp