linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] isdn: patches for 2.6.31

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090607.042724.238501430.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tilman@...p.cc
Cc:	karsten-keil@...nline.de, isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
	i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] isdn: patches for 2.6.31

From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:38:26 +0200

> On 01.06.2009 12:04, David Miller wrote:
>> First problem in the second patch.  You're doing two things
>> at once.  You're adding function documentation and also adding
>> a NULL pointer check.
> 
> No problem. I can split the patch in two if you prefer it that way.

Thanks.

>> Second problem, the NULL pointer check is gratuitous.  Document
>> that the 'm' member has to be non-NULL and leave the check out.
> 
> That would be a bad solution for two reasons:
> First, the 'm' member is private to capiutil.{c,h}. Callers are
> not supposed to access it. Therefore it shouldn't be referred to
> in the interface documentation. At best, such a mention would
> leave users of the function confused how to assure that condition.
> At worst, it might mislead them into meddling directly with the
> member, thereby producing incorrect code.
> And second, the main use of capi_cmsg2str() is for error reporting
> and debugging output. Oopsing in an error handler is particularly
> troublesome. At the same time, the risk of the 'm' member being
> unexpectedly NULL is particularly high when something has gone
> wrong already. So a safety check is advisable in this case.

Fair enough.

> PS: Any objections against the other two patches?

I don't remember it's been so many days since I looked at
this series :-(
--
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/