linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] 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: <20151222080015.GY5284@mwanda>
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:00:15 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	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 v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in
 mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:48:57PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches?
> 

Not really.  The patch could be described as just "change from using one
exit label to using several."  Markus has sent a number of these patches
and I am CC'd on them because of kernel-janitors, it's really painful to
review when he breaks them up into tiny patches where he changes one
label at a time.  It's like trying to put coleslaw back together into a
head of cabbage.

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100
> > 
> > A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> > even though it was determined that the passed variable "pages" contained
> > a null pointer or a call of the alloc_page() function failed.
> > 
> > 1. Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
> > 
> > 2. Corresponding implementation details could be improved by adjustments
> >    for jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
> > 
> > 3. Delete sanity checks then.

These are not sanity checks, of course.  They were required because of a
common exit path.

> > 
> > 4. Move an assignment for the variable "eof" behind memory allocations.

I had asked Markus not to do this.  It is unrelated.

> > 
> > 5. The variable "req" will eventually be set to an appropriate pointer
> >    from a call of the ptlrpc_request_alloc() function.
> >    Thus let us omit the explicit initialisation before.

Now that we use multiple labels it isn't necessary to initialize "req".

> > 
> > 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl".

This is where he changed pages[i] == NULL to !(pages[i]).  It's not
strictly related but it's minor and he was changing those lines anyway.

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/