linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 10/32] ext4: change ext4_xattr_inode

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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:55:46 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/32] ext4: change ext4_xattr_inode_iget() signature

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 02:21:20PM -0700, Tahsin Erdogan wrote:
> In general, kernel functions indicate success/failure through their return
> values. This function returns the status as an output parameter and reserves
> the return value for the inode. Make it follow the general convention.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>

The fact that we have several conventions for error passing, is due to
the long history of the ext2/3/4 code base.  In the long term, I'd
actually like to see us gradually move everyhing to use the ERR_PTR
convention.  It's a bit more efficient for the common (no error) case,
and it allows us to drop an extra parameter from the function
signature.

Still, it's incrementally better this way, so thanks, added to the
ext4 patch queue.

					- Ted