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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:16:34 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc: Remove uses of return value of seq_printf/seq_puts On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:52:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:44:48 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > > These functions are soon going to return void > > That's news to me. > > > so remove the > > return value uses. > > > > Convert the return value to test seq_has_overflowed() instead. > > Why not make seq_printf() return seq_has_overflowed()? Because we are getting well-meaning folks who try to check that return value, again and again, getting it wrong every time. Typical idiocies: * return some kind of error out of ->show() on overflows. Pointless *and* wrong - only hard errors (== fail read(2) with that) should be reported that way; the caller does detect overflow and retires with bigger buffer just fine. * keep checking it after every sodding call of seq_...(), screwing the cleanups up more often than not. Pointless, unless you are doing some seriously expensive calculations to produce something you are going to print. seq_...() are no-ops in case when overflow has already happened. seq_had_overflowed() is only for situations when you really want to skip a serious amount of work generating the data that would end up being discarded and recalculated again when the caller grabs a bigger buffer and calls you again. And more often than not it's an indication of ->show() trying to do the work of iterator - e.g. when you have single_open() with ->show() printing the entire hash table of some sort all in one record. Most of the time checking return value of seq_...() is better replaced with not doing that. And "must check return value and Do Something(tm)" is too strong habit for enough people to cause recurring trouble. -- 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