linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 24/61] sysfs: make sysfs

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: <4697078D.4050601@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:03:09 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ???? <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/61] sysfs: make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd

Hello, forgot one thing.

Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I can't believe it should be so difficult to understand this. How can any
>> caller (that first did a xxx_get() on that shared object) land up with that
>> object getting NULL _from under it_ unless some logic is wrong
>> somewhere? And instead of flagging this broken logic, the proposed
>> change here would hide it.

I agree with you about get().  Allowing NULL argument doesn't really
help anything.  It only increases the chance of getting things wrong.
I'm all for not allowing NULL argument to get().  For put(), as I wrote
before, I think allowing NULL has some advantages and I don't care
either way as long as it's not confusing.  The 'not confusing' part is
way more important to me than advantages of either way.

-- 
tejun
-
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/