linux-kernel - Re: iio/…: Use common error handling code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:45:52 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: iio/…: Use common error handling code

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:43:34 +0100
SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> > Hi Markus, I've accepted the ones that I think made an improvement
> > outweighing the inherent small costs of making any change.  
> 
> Does such a kind of feedback mean that you reconsidered any places
> where you expressed a rejection initially?
No.  Once I have expressed strong reservations about a patch it
would require some change in the facts to make me reevaluate.
> 
> 
> > We also need to avoid code constructs that are unusual in error handling
> > such as backwards gotos.  
> 
> Why would you like to exclude this approach if anything useful could be achieved
> in the shown software design direction?
Yes - exclude this. It trades of ease of review against briefness of code.
Ease of review and hence verification of correctness is more important in these
cases.

> 
> 
> > Note however that most of the changes made so far are only minor improvements.  
> 
> I agree that corresponding effects are small just because the discussed
> source code adjustments affected specific function implementations.
> 
> 
> > I am not saying I don't appreciate them,  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> > but rather than that they are of of low importance.  
> 
> A lot of details are competing also for our software development attention.
>
Exactly.

Jonathan
 
> Regards,
> Markus