linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/itimer.c: beautify code, not need check 'value', so save one instruction, simpler and easier for readers.t

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: <51C8EB41.6060501@asianux.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:58:41 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/itimer.c: beautify code, not need check 'value',
 so save one instruction, simpler and easier for readers.t

On 06/25/2013 07:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>> > >> > Also can let code simpler and easier for readers: if checking parameter
>>>>> > >> > 'value', it will easily lead readers to think about why not return
>>>>> > >> > -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT, when checking parameter failed.
>>> > > So you are seriously claiming, that the check for !value makes people
>>> > > think that the return value should be -EINVAL?
>>> > > 
>>> > > That's hillarious.
>>> > > 
>> > That seems not a quite polite word, is it ?  ;-)
> My apologies for being so impolite. Let me rephrase it. Here is a
> "sample" changelog for your patch:
> 

It doesn't matter, I really don't (shouldn't) care about it.

Next time, I should try to send patch carefully, so may save the
maintainers' timer resource.

And excuse me for my poor English and either not familiar with kernel, I
am trying to improve them, and keep improving them.


>   Subject: itimers: Remove bogus NULL pointer check in sys_getitimer()
> 
>     People might be tricked into assuming that the return value for a
>     failed NULL pointer check should be -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT.
> 
>     Remove the misleading NULL pointer check to fix this nuisance.
> 
>     Aside of that this patch fixes the problem of NOMMU kernels, where
>     a NULL pointer dereference is a valid operation. This allows to
>     boot NOMMU kernels without working around the shortcomings of the
>     getitimer() system call, which have been ignored since this NULL
>     pointer check was introduced in Linux 0.96a.
> 

Really very good comments, at least for me now, I really can not write a
comment like that.

> 
> Please resubmit.

I will send patch v4 (patch v3 has sent, and should be obsoleted)

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation
--
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/