linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Don't set err in unix_stream_read

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:07:03 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ben@...adent.org.uk
Cc:	rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	edumazet@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, ying.xue@...driver.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, joseph.salisbury@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Don't set err in unix_stream_read_generic
 unless there was an error

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:24:51 +0000

> I agree that 'if (err) goto cleanup;' is widely used and is generally
> understandable (though more creative uses of goto are often not).
> 
> My objection was to 'err = -EFOO; if (cond) goto cleanup;'.  That is
> definitely not clear and it hides mistakes like this.

I don't see any difference whatsoever.

Part of the convention of the cleanup blob at the end of the
function is that error propagate to it's return statement via
a variable.

If this code wanted to handle that in more than one way, it is
the problem of this function, not of the convention itself.