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]

Message-ID: <20070516143308.GA8327@cvg>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 18:33:08 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	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

[Christoph Hellwig - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:01:26PM +0100]
| On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:09:20PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > | > | 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.
| > | 
| > 
| > Christoph, my only argue against getting rid of UDF_I_* macro in
| > my patch is UDF coding style, I don't want to damage it. I think
| > we may leave it as is (including my patch). So just review the patch
| > I sent (second version) and Ack it then so Andrew could include it
| > into mm tree. Meantime I'm rewritting the whole UDF subsystem to
| > get rid of that macroses (it will be a long way ;)
| 
| The UDF style is horrible and very unlike other kernel code.  Given
| that udf has been pretty much unmtained for a while there should be
| nothing in the way of fixing it.
| 
| Anyway, the patch is technically correct so you'll get my ACK (not
| that you should need it).
| 

Hi Christoph,

you know I've read UDF sources. As I understand all UDF_I_ macroses
could be converted without breaking UDF state but... as you exactly
mentoined it's style is horrible and I'm thinking about rewritting the
whole UDF system. Unfortunelly I'm not _mature_ kernel developer (I'm kernel
newbie) and it could take a long time for this (I think something like
~ 3 month or more ;). Actually I'm ready to spend my free time for
this. So how do you think could it be reasonable?

		Cyrill

-
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/