linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover

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: <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:38:40 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in
 mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:04:14PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> >> even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained
> >> a null pointer.
> >>
> >> * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
> >>
> >> * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind
> >>   this memory allocation.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception 
> handling implementation, doesn't it?
> 
> Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations?
> 

Just leave it as-is if there is no reason.

> 
> > Then in the next patch it moves again.
> 
> This detail is a matter of patch granularity.
> 
> 
> > It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes.
> 
> Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step?

Yes.  Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into
one patch.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/