linux-kernel - Re: SELinux: Checking source code positions for the setting of error codes

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:   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