netdev - Re: [PATCH][NETNS] Use list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse in setup

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: <m1bqc429ta.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:53:21 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][NETNS] Use list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse in setup_net

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> Could we just make it so dev->init is not allowed to fail? Then it
> can be a void function and the nasty unwind code can go?

Unfortunately we need to allocate memory, and perform other operations
that can fail.  That's the nature of the problem.

So I think not allowing init to fail would be optimizing for the wrong
the case.  Allowing init to fail makes the rest of the code simpler
because we don't have to perform the impossible when the highly
unlikely happens.

The ugly unwind is only about 5 lines of code that never need to
change (except for beautification).  So I don't think the cost
is prohibitive.

Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html