linux-kernel - Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen

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, 23 Oct 2017 12:10:24 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:01:05AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function
> > just makes the code less readable.
> 
> I got an other software development opinion on this aspect.
> Could you become used to the proposed control flow structure
> in the affected function?
> 

No.  Don't do this.  It's pointless obfuscation.

> 
> > I know you never listen to anyone,
> 
> My response times might not fir to your preferences.
> 
> 
> > but you should stop doing it.
> 
> I am going to offer suggestions for change patterns which I find useful.
> There are some challenges around change acceptance as usual.

Yeah.  I knew it was pointless to ask you to stop this...  :(

regards,
dan carpenter