linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] oprofile fixes for 3.2

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: <20111219141703.GG16765@erda.amd.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:17:03 +0100
From:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	oprofile-list <oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] oprofile fixes for 3.2

On 19.12.11 15:00:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> +	if (!count)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	retval = oprofilefs_ulong_from_user(&value, buf, count);
>  	if (retval)
>  		return retval;
> 
> See the ugly and fragile pattern?
> 
> This should *really* be solved via the 
> oprofilefs_ulong_from_user() helper function, not by sprinkling 
> the !count checks in half a dozen places ...

Hmm, I thought there was no way to leave the code path with count == 0
and retval. But thinking about it it would be possible with returning
count or errors < 0. Will improve the patch.

Thanks,

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
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/