linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/13] exfat: add super block operations

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: <9e9bac40-109c-3349-24da-532c540638c2@web.de>
Date:   Sun, 17 Nov 2019 14:30:22 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
        Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
        linkinjeon@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] exfat: add super block operations

…
> +++ b/fs/exfat/super.c
…
> +static int exfat_show_options(struct seq_file *m, struct dentry *root)
> +{
…
> +	seq_printf(m, ",fmask=%04o", opts->fs_fmask);
> +	seq_printf(m, ",dmask=%04o", opts->fs_dmask);

How do you think about to combine these two function calls into a single one?

> +static int __exfat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb)
> +{
…
> +		exfat_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "unable to read boot sector");
> +		ret = -EIO;
> +		goto out;
…

Would you like to simplify this place?

+		return -EIO;

…
> +		exfat_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to load upcase table");
> +		goto out;

Would you like to omit this label?

+		return ret;

> +static int exfat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
> +{
…
> +		exfat_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to recognize exfat type");
> +		goto failed_mount;

The local variable “root_inode” contains still a null pointer at this place.

* Thus I would find a jump target like “reset_s_root” more appropriate.

* Can the corresponding pointer initialisation be omitted then?

…
> +failed_mount:
> +	if (root_inode)
> +		iput(root_inode);
…

I am informed in the way that this function tolerates the passing
of null pointers.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/inode.c?id=1d4c79ed324ad780cfc3ad38364ba1fd585dd2a8#n1567
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4-rc7/source/fs/inode.c#L1567

Thus I suggest to omit the extra pointer check also at this place.

> +static int __init init_exfat_fs(void)
> +{
…
+	err = exfat_cache_init();
+	if (err)
+		goto error;

Can it be nicer to return directly?

…
> +	if (!exfat_inode_cachep)
> +		goto error;

Can an other jump target like “shutdown_cache” be more appropriate?

> +	err = register_filesystem(&exfat_fs_type);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto error;
…

Can the label “destroy_cache” be more appropriate?

Regards,
Markus