linux-kernel - Re: [v2 2/2] io_uring: Improve exception handling in io_ring_ctx

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:00:21 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 2/2] io_uring: Improve exception handling in
 io_ring_ctx_alloc()

>> The label “err” was used to jump to a kfree() call despite of
>> the detail in the implementation of the function “io_ring_ctx_alloc”
>> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained
>> a null pointer because of a failed memory allocation.
>>
>> 1. Thus use more appropriate labels instead.
>>
>> 2. Reorder jump targets at the end.
>>
>
> As I mentioned on v1, this doesn't do us any good,

I dare to present other development views.


> as kfree can handle NULL pointers just fine,

Yes, this is the case.

Would you dare to categorise such a special function calls as redundant?

May it be skipped in more cases?


> and changes like this becomes churn later when backporting or modifying the code.

There are usual opportunities to consider for further collateral evolution.

Regards,
Markus