linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] sysctl: refactor integer handling proc code

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: <201002161248.56598.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:48:56 +0200
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] sysctl: refactor integer handling proc code

On Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:41:07 you wrote:

> > +
> > +     if (!write && !first && left && !err)
> > +             err = proc_put_newline(&buffer, &left);
> > +     if (write && !err)
> > +             err = proc_skip_wspace(&buffer, &left);
> > +     if (err == -EFAULT /* do we really need to check for -EFAULT? */ ||
> > +         (write && first))
> > +             return err ? : -EINVAL;
> 
> The logic here seems messy, adding one or two goto's may help?
> 

OK, I'll give it a try. 

What about the EFAULT check, is that really required?
--
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/