linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] keys: asymmetric: fix error return code in software_key

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: <1267853.1595489483@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:31:23 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] keys: asymmetric: fix error return code in software_key_query()

Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> >  	if (IS_ERR(tfm))
> >  		return PTR_ERR(tfm);
> >  
> > +	ret = -ENOMEM;
> 
> This is extremely confusing to read way to handle 'ret'.
> 
> Would be way more cleaner to be just simple and stupid:
> 
> 	if (!key) {
> 		ret = -ENOMEM;
> 		goto error_free_tfm;
> 	}

I agree, but we have some people who will (or who used to) moan at you for
doing in four lines what you could've done in three.  I don't know if this is
still the standard.

David