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  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]
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] af_packet: Check return of

From: Wang Chen <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:54:32 +0800

> @@ -1245,7 +1247,8 @@ static int packet_mc_add(struct sock *sk, struct packet_mreq_max *mreq)
>  	i->count = 1;
>  	i->next = po->mclist;
>  	po->mclist = i;
> -	packet_dev_mc(dev, i, +1);
> +	/* Positive increment should be checked for overflow --WCN */
> +	err = packet_dev_mc(dev, i, 1);

Please don't add these little signatures to comments.  That might have
been useful to do 10 years ago when we didn't use proper source
control, but now we do and anyone interested can do a "git blame"
to see who added that comment and why.

Also, this comment doesn't really add any information.  We check
error return values simply because errors can happen, that's just
a straight fact.  If packet_dev_mc() and it's sub calls can error
for other reasons this comment is only telling part of the story
and as a result becomes inaccurate.

Therefore, I'd like to ask that you not add this comment, it doesn't
really help anything.  This kind of information can go into the
commit log message.  That's where "why" information tends to belong.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists