linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] dm ioctl: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "dm_table

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Feb 2015 09:02:53 -0500
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dm ioctl: Delete an unnecessary check before the
 function call "dm_table_destroy"

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:55 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> Your proposed patch (while technically correct) hurts code clarity.
>
> How many source code readability and understanding challenges does each
> additional condition check cause?

Please don't make a mountain out of a mole hill in an attempt to
defend your robotic patch (I'm quite tired of some of these static
analyzer patch submissions).

FYI, I did stage your other patch for 3.20, see:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-for-3.20&id=d0ce7e911c97c7c6df1081dcedfefced82a0c6bf

> Can the affected place become also a bit more efficient?

Efficiency isn't a concern in this instance (it isn't a hot IO path).
And even if it were, a branch (with current code) is more efficient vs
a a jump + branch (your proposed patch) -- in the case that no active
table exists.  Now if it likely that old_map does exist then yes your
patch is always a very slight win.

But given the duality of the calling function (deals with loading a
new map and destroying the old map if it exists) I prefer to keep the
code as is.  Sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/