linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel-audit: Deletion of an unnecessary check before the function call "audit_log

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: <5468938B.502@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:07:39 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel-audit: Deletion of an unnecessary check before
 the function call "audit_log_end" (or improve error handling?)

> The original code is very clear, the new code works exactly the same but
> it's not clear if the author forgot about handling errors from
> audit_log_start().

We have got different expectations on source code clarity here.


> So now someone will come along later and add:
> 	if (!ab)
> 		return;
> 
> We get a lot of mindless "add error handling" patches like that.

This is an interesting background information.

Do you eventually prefer to improve the affected error detection
and corresponding exception handling?
Will a condition check become absolutely necessary there?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/