linux-kernel - Re: block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe

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]

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/