| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5656BAC5.3060501@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:54:45 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> To: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com> Cc: Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>, Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Subject: Re: block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe_parent() after error detection >> I interpreted the eventual passing of a null pointer to the rbd_dev_destroy() >> function as an indication for further source code adjustments. > > If all error paths could be adjusted so that NULL pointers are never passed in, > destroy functions wouldn't need to have a NULL check, would they? How do you think about to clarify corresponding implementation details a bit more? * Why was the function "rbd_dev_probe_parent" implemented in the way that it relies on a sanity check in the function "rbd_dev_destroy" then? * How are the chances to restructure the source code a bit (like changing a few jump labels) so that it should also work without an extra function call during error handling 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists