crypto: sa2ul - avoid rollback in sa_init_ctx_info()

Allocate the security context before reserving a security context ID to avoid the rollback on allocation failure. Remove the now-unused local error variable.

Signed-off-by Thorsten Blum <[email protected]>

---
  drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c | 22 ++++++----------------
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c +0 -0

index e026fc14a411..964ddadaa211 100644

drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c +0 -8

  	spin_lock(&data->scid_lock);
  	bn = find_first_zero_bit(data->ctx_bm, SA_MAX_NUM_CTX);

@@ -758,22 +763,7 @@ static int sa_init_ctx_info(struct sa_ctx_info *ctx,
 
  	ctx->sc_id = (u16)(data->sc_id_start + bn);
 
-	ctx->sc = dma_pool_alloc(data->sc_pool, GFP_KERNEL, &ctx->sc_phys);
-	if (!ctx->sc) {
-		dev_err(&data->pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate SC memory\n");
-		err = -ENOMEM;
-		goto scid_rollback;
-	}
-
  	return 0;
-

Hi Thorsten,

Quoted 14 lines · Thorsten Blum

Allocate the security context before reserving a security context ID to avoid the rollback on allocation failure. Remove the now-unused local error variable.

Signed-off-by Thorsten Blum <[email protected]>

---
  drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c | 22 ++++++----------------
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c +0 -0

index e026fc14a411..964ddadaa211 100644

drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c static int sa_init_ctx_info(struct sa_ctx_info *ctx, · line 756

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/crypto/sa2ul.c +6 -1

@@ -748,7 +748,12 @@ static int sa_init_ctx_info(struct sa_ctx_info *ctx,
  			    struct sa_crypto_data *data)
  {
  	unsigned long bn;
-	int err;
+
+	ctx->sc = dma_pool_alloc(data->sc_pool, GFP_KERNEL, &ctx->sc_phys);
+	if (!ctx->sc) {
+		dev_err(&data->pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate SC memory\n");
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}

I have been working on a cleanup and the following patch [0] would actually defeat
the purpose of the patch you've posted, with the addition of the check, we'd have to
rollback this dma alloc'ed pool instead which just reverses the order of rollback and
nothing else.

Are you okay if we drop this patch ( given am not seeing any criticality ) or do you see
it still helping after the context of the patch I shared?