linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data

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:	Fri, 11 May 2007 11:39:56 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Fennema <bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu>,
	Jan Kara <jack@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:01:27PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Christoph Hellwig - Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:29:39AM +0100]
> 
> ...
> 
> | And please get rid of the UDF_I_* macro for everything you touch, just
> | put a
> | 
> | 	struct udf_inode_info *uip = UDF_I(inode);
> | 
> | at the beginning of the function and use the fields directly.
> | 
> 
> Actually to properly remove UDF_I* and UDF_SB_* macroses in the
> whole UDF subsystem - is _lot_ of work. I'm going to make it but
> not now (too busy).

Doing it completely is a lot of work, yes.  I was more thinking of
converting a piece of code once you do major changes.  But if you
want to convert all the code as a separate patch I'm more than happy
aswell.
-
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/