[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311026365.3648.110.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:59:25 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add error check to hex2bin().
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 00:18 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > What about making it return the number of unprocessed bytes left instead?
> > Then the caller knows where the problem lies. And zero would mean success.
> If I remember correctly it used to be src as return value in some
> version of that patch. I don't know the details of that interim
> solution. My current opinion is to return boolean and make an
> additional parameter to return src value. However, it could make this
> simple function fat.
> P.S. Take into account that the user of it is only one so far, I would
> like to hear a Mimi's opinion.
Trusted/encrypted keys are not in a critical code path. They're used for
loading/storing key blobs from userspace. Once you change the API, short
circuiting out and adding an error return, from a trusted/encrypted key
perspective, it doesn't make a difference.
thanks,
Mimi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists