linux-kernel - Re: KVM: s390: Move two error code assignments in kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty

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

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:08:12 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM: s390: Move two error code assignments in
 kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log()

> Patches that changes open coded things to common helpers or things like
> kmalloc_array where appropriate or things that make the code more robust
> are fine and welcome, but I am not going to take this as it just shuffles
> things around.

Thanks for such information.


> It does not fix anything and it does not improve the code,

I have got an other expectation for the shown implementation detail.


> but it certainly carries the risk of breaking something

This is usual in software development, isn't it?


> (yes in this case it looks perfectly fine, though).

Thanks for this bit of positive feedback.


> Due to the locking requirements we cannot do such a simplification here.

I find this detail strange. Would you like to check run time consequences
for the shown error code settings once more?

Regards,
Markus