[PATCH] efivarfs: Eliminate dead code in efivarfs_create()

[PATCH] efivarfs: Eliminate dead code in efivarfs_create()

[Tobias Klauser]

After commit ed8b0de5a33d ("efi: Make efivarfs entries immutable by
default"), inode will always be NULL in the error check before iput(),
thus remove the check and the call to iput() alltogether. Also directly
fold the error handling code into the only place it is needed, which
makes the code a bit smaller.

Found by the Coverity scanner (CID 1353443).

Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser-93Khv+1bN0NyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org>
---
 fs/efivarfs/inode.c | 15 +++++----------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
index e2ab6d0497f2..43321c9cd71b 100644
--- a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
 {
 	struct inode *inode = NULL;
 	struct efivar_entry *var;
-	int namelen, i = 0, err = 0;
+	int namelen, i = 0;
 	bool is_removable = false;
 
 	if (!efivarfs_valid_name(dentry->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.len))
@@ -128,8 +128,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
 
 	inode = efivarfs_get_inode(dir->i_sb, dir, mode, 0, is_removable);
 	if (!inode) {
-		err = -ENOMEM;
-		goto out;
+		kfree(var);
+		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
 	for (i = 0; i < namelen; i++)
@@ -142,13 +142,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
 	efivar_entry_add(var, &efivarfs_list);
 	d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
 	dget(dentry);
-out:
-	if (err) {
-		kfree(var);
-		if (inode)
-			iput(inode);
-	}
-	return err;
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int efivarfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
-- 
2.7.0.297.g563e384

Re: [PATCH] efivarfs: Eliminate dead code in efivarfs_create()

[Matt Fleming]

On Tue, 23 Feb, at 05:07:10PM, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> After commit ed8b0de5a33d ("efi: Make efivarfs entries immutable by
> default"), inode will always be NULL in the error check before iput(),
> thus remove the check and the call to iput() alltogether. Also directly
> fold the error handling code into the only place it is needed, which
> makes the code a bit smaller.
> 
> Found by the Coverity scanner (CID 1353443).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser-93Khv+1bN0NyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  fs/efivarfs/inode.c | 15 +++++----------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> index e2ab6d0497f2..43321c9cd71b 100644
> --- a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  {
>  	struct inode *inode = NULL;
>  	struct efivar_entry *var;
> -	int namelen, i = 0, err = 0;
> +	int namelen, i = 0;
>  	bool is_removable = false;
>  
>  	if (!efivarfs_valid_name(dentry->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.len))
> @@ -128,8 +128,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  
>  	inode = efivarfs_get_inode(dir->i_sb, dir, mode, 0, is_removable);
>  	if (!inode) {
> -		err = -ENOMEM;
> -		goto out;
> +		kfree(var);
> +		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < namelen; i++)
> @@ -142,13 +142,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  	efivar_entry_add(var, &efivarfs_list);
>  	d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  	dget(dentry);
> -out:
> -	if (err) {
> -		kfree(var);
> -		if (inode)
> -			iput(inode);
> -	}
> -	return err;
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int efivarfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)

Looks good to me. Thanks, applied!

Re: [PATCH] efivarfs: Eliminate dead code in efivarfs_create()

[Tobias Klauser]

On 2016-02-24 at 17:47:34 +0100, Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb, at 05:07:10PM, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> > After commit ed8b0de5a33d ("efi: Make efivarfs entries immutable by
> > default"), inode will always be NULL in the error check before iput(),
> > thus remove the check and the call to iput() alltogether. Also directly
> > fold the error handling code into the only place it is needed, which
> > makes the code a bit smaller.
> > 
> > Found by the Coverity scanner (CID 1353443).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser-93Khv+1bN0NyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/efivarfs/inode.c | 15 +++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> > index e2ab6d0497f2..43321c9cd71b 100644
> > --- a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c
> > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> >  {
> >  	struct inode *inode = NULL;
> >  	struct efivar_entry *var;
> > -	int namelen, i = 0, err = 0;
> > +	int namelen, i = 0;
> >  	bool is_removable = false;
> >  
> >  	if (!efivarfs_valid_name(dentry->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.len))
> > @@ -128,8 +128,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> >  
> >  	inode = efivarfs_get_inode(dir->i_sb, dir, mode, 0, is_removable);
> >  	if (!inode) {
> > -		err = -ENOMEM;
> > -		goto out;
> > +		kfree(var);
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < namelen; i++)
> > @@ -142,13 +142,8 @@ static int efivarfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> >  	efivar_entry_add(var, &efivarfs_list);
> >  	d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
> >  	dget(dentry);
> > -out:
> > -	if (err) {
> > -		kfree(var);
> > -		if (inode)
> > -			iput(inode);
> > -	}
> > -	return err;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int efivarfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> 
> Looks good to me. Thanks, applied!

Ping, this doesn't seem to have made it into Linus' tree, linux-next or
your publicly accessible tree yet. It seems the patch still applies, or
should I resubmit it?

Re: [PATCH] efivarfs: Eliminate dead code in efivarfs_create()

[Matt Fleming]

On Tue, 19 Jul, at 01:06:14PM, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> 
> Ping, this doesn't seem to have made it into Linus' tree, linux-next or
> your publicly accessible tree yet. It seems the patch still applies, or
> should I resubmit it?

Sorry about that, I've no idea what happened to this patch. I've
queued this up for v4.9 now, no need to resubmit.