[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <451FFAC9.1050903@garzik.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:28:41 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/eventpoll: error handling micro-cleanup
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 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?
When called with a valid pointer, the value assigned to the return-code
integer is essentially a random number.
> 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 {} \;`
Perhaps 1 out of every 100 or so hits from this find(1) is unprotected
by IS_ERR(). IOW, what I've been describing here is quite rare.
Jeff
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists