linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcache: untagle cache

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160718102854.GA19374@kmo-pixel>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:28:54 -0800
From:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Eric Wheeler <git@...ux.ewheeler.net>,
	Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: untagle cache_aolloc

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:24:11PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:13:33AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:11:09PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > > bcache's cache_alloc() function currenty has no way freeing memory if one of
> > > the allocations fails. Untangle the if + allocation statement so we have
> > > defined checkpoints to free previous allocations if one fails.
> > 
> > nack. The existing error path handles failure midway through just fine.
> 
> Come on, the patch improves the readability of the if statement by some orders
> of magnitude as well.
> 
> Are you OK with it if I change the subject/commit log?

No, it's just churn and I don't agree that it improves readability. On the
contrary, now the cleanup code has to be duplicated in two places - which
invites them getting out of sync and introducing bugs.