On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 10:31 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:30:55 +0100 > > Move the jump label directly before the desired assignment for the > variable "valid_policy" at the end so that the variable "result" will not > be checked once more after it was determined that a received input > parameter was not zero or a memory allocation failed. > Use the identifier "reset_validity" instead of the label "out". > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> > --- > security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > index ca303e5d2b94..c1c8d34d111d 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c > @@ -321,12 +321,12 @@ static ssize_t ima_write_policy(struct file *file, > const char __user *buf, > /* No partial writes. */ > result = -EINVAL; > if (*ppos != 0) > - goto out; > + goto reset_validity; > > result = -ENOMEM; > data = kmalloc(datalen + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!data) > - goto out; > + goto reset_validity; > > *(data + datalen) = '\0'; > > @@ -353,8 +353,8 @@ static ssize_t ima_write_policy(struct file *file, const > char __user *buf, > mutex_unlock(&ima_write_mutex); > out_free: > kfree(data); > -out: > if (result < 0) > +reset_validity:
Really?! Do you really think this makes the code more readable? A more common, readable approach is to have two exit points - a normal exit and an error exit. Let's leave it to the compiler to do the optimization. Mimi > valid_policy = 0; > > return result;
