[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22f22cfd-8843-5cfd-6207-f61c80e52b1f@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:31:02 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
William Roberts <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SELinux: Checking source code positions for the setting of error
codes
> I have a personal style preference for
>
> rc = -ENOMEM;
> val = kalloc();
> if (!val)
> goto err;
>
> vs
>
> val = kalloc();
> if (!val) {
> rc = -ENOMEM;
> goto err;
> }
>
> because it saves 1 line
Thanks for your feedback.
> and I think the compiler does the right/same thing.
* Did you check any corresponding code generation results in more detail?
* Can misplaced variable assignments result in unwanted run time consequences
because of the previous approach for a control flow specification?
* How do you think about to achieve that error codes will only be set
after a specific software failure was detected?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists