linux-kernel - Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill

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: <87egsm2dlz.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Sun, 30 Nov 2014 01:08:56 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org,
	Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection

SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> writes:

>> More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize
>> on this error path), isn't it?
>
> I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary
> function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided.

It is from real bugs in my experience, it saw several times those (mine
and other guys, in linux and others). And I think it doesn't have value
to maintain labels for micro optimization in *this error path* though.

So, if you or analyzer can check bugs by the patches affect to those
label usage in future,

Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/