linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] err.h: document that PTR_ERR should only be used if IS

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]

Message-ID: <20181016180650.GZ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:06:51 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>
Cc:     uwe@...ine-koenig.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        Michal.Vokac@...ft.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] err.h: document that PTR_ERR should only be used if
 IS_ERR returns true

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:37:08AM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:

> OTOH I admit you can compare any value with -EINVAL, after PTR_ERR.
> But in general you first detect the error condition and then split
> among error (or print a message according to the exact value.

	if (IS_ERR(p) && PTR_ERR(p) == -ENOENT)
instead of
	if (p == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))

is ugly, obfuscating what's going on for no good reason and I'm going
to keep killing those every time I run into one...