linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-TILCDC: Less function calls in tilcdc_convert_slave

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:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:36:17 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TILCDC: Less function calls in
 tilcdc_convert_slave_node() after error detection

> I think the "if (node)" in the of_node_put() is there on purpose,

Yes, of course.

Does such an implementation detail correspond to a general software design pattern?

> because it potentially saves the caller one extra if()-statement

This can occasionally happen.

> and keeps the caller code simpler.

A special view on software simplicity can also lead to questionable intermediate
function implementation, can't it?

> Keeping the goto labels in right order needs precision

I can agree to this view.

> and can lead to subtle errors.

The management of jump labels is just another software development challenge
as usual, isn't it?

> Sometimes there is no way to avoid that,

How do you think about to clarify the constraints which you imagine a bit more?

> but here there is.

I disagree to this conclusion.

Would you like to care a bit more for efficiency and software correctness
around the discussed exception handling?

Regards,
Markus