mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@gmail.com>
To: Ma Ke <make24@iscas.ac.cn>, arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] char: xillybus: Fix error handling in xillybus_init_chrdev()
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 14:26:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fae36efb-be09-8b60-ff84-db6cb38fc18e@outbound.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250718100815.3404437-1-make24@iscas.ac.cn>

On 18/07/2025 12:08, Ma Ke wrote:
> Use cdev_del() instead of direct kobject_put() when cdev_add() fails.
> This aligns with standard kernel practice and maintains consistency
> within the driver's own error paths.
> 

Could you please point at how and why this is "standard kernel 
practice"? In my reply to PATCH v2, I pointed out that indeed, in 
fs/fuse/cuse.c a failure of cdev_add() leads to a call to cdev_del(), 
like you suggested. However, in uio/uio.c the same scenario is handled 
by a call to kobject_put(), exactly as in my driver. So which way is 
"standard"?

There are indeed kernel-global efforts to align code with a certain 
coding style every now and then. Is there any such in relation to this 
issue?

Otherwise, please leave this alone. Playing around with error handling 
flows is a dangerous business, and can lead to vulnerabilities. One 
needs a good reason to do that on code that has been out there for a 
while (four years, in this case).

And now, to the patch itself:

> @@ -157,8 +156,6 @@ int xillybus_init_chrdev(struct device *dev,
>   		device_destroy(&xillybus_class, MKDEV(unit->major,
>   						     i + unit->lowest_minor));
>   
> -	cdev_del(unit->cdev);
> -
>   unregister_chrdev:
>   	unregister_chrdev_region(MKDEV(unit->major, unit->lowest_minor),
>   				 unit->num_nodes);

Why did you do this? It just adds a memory leak, and it's out of the way 
of even trying to fix anything: The only effect this has is that 
cdev_del() isn't called on error situations that occur after cdev_add() 
has been successful. It has nothing to do with the kobject_put() / 
cdev_add() thing, because that case jumps to unregister_chrdev, which is 
after this removal.

I have to say, both the language of the patch description as well as the 
weird removal of cdev_del() remind me of nonsense ChatGPT does when it's 
given tasks related to programming. If you're using AI to suggest 
patches, please stop.

Regards,
    Eli

      reply	other threads:[~2025-07-19 12:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-18 10:08 Ma Ke
2025-07-19 12:26 ` Eli Billauer [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fae36efb-be09-8b60-ff84-db6cb38fc18e@outbound.gmail.com \
    --to=eli.billauer@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=make24@iscas.ac.cn \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®