linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/eventpoll: error handling micro-cleanup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/eventpoll: error handling micro-cleanup

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> > I just tried a `find /usr/src/linux-2.6.16/ -type f -exec grep -H -C 2
> > PTR_ERR {} \;`
> > and looked at the cases where the error variable is assigned in any case
> > before the test. Same code pattern as, like:
> > 
> > error = -EFAULT;
> > if (copy_from_user(...))
> > 	goto kaboom;
> 
> No, that's quite different.  I'm talking about
> 
> 	ptr = get_a_pointer_from_somewhere()
> 	error = PTR_ERR(ptr)
> 
> See the difference?  The error variable is directly assigned from a
> potentially-valid pointer.

So? Is PTR_ERR() defined and documented in a way that, if called with a 
valid pointer, has an unexpected/faulty behaviour?
Again, I don't care either ways, but don't tell me you're not sure about 
the countless occurrences. Take a look at:

`find $LINUXSRC -type f -exec grep -H -C 2 PTR_ERR {} \;`



- Davide


-
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/