On 18.10.2021 12:42, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("[PATCH] x86/HVM: correct cleanup after failed
> viridian_vcpu_init()"):
>> This happens after nestedhvm_vcpu_initialise(), so its effects also need
>> to be undone.
>>
>> Fixes: 40a4a9d72d16 ("viridian: add init hooks")
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -1583,7 +1583,7 @@ int hvm_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
>>
>> rc = viridian_vcpu_init(v);
>> if ( rc )
>> - goto fail5;
>> + goto fail6;
>
> Not acomment about the patch; rather about the code in general.
>
> I have not looked at the context.
>
> But OMG, this is horrific. How can anyone write code in such an idiom
> without writing endless bugs ?
Well, one of the reasons I dislike "goto".
Since you've been looking here - any chance of getting a release ack?
Perhaps also on "x86/shadow: make a local variable in sh_page_fault()
HVM-only" and "x86/PV: address odd UB in I/O emulation"? Aiui that's
going to be needed from today on ...
Jan
