| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:41:37 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: julia.lawall@...6.fr Cc: davej@...hat.com, joe@...ches.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove unnecessary return's From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:58:00 +0100 (CET) > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, David Miller wrote: > >> I think it is valuable, it's so much easier to audit the return paths >> via a process of elimination with that kind of layout. A return in >> the middle of that looks out of place at best. > > Actually, I had a student who made a tool that went the other way around, > and introduced goto labels for sharable error handling code. We didn't > get around to using it to send patches, though. In that tool, we didn't > create labels just for returns, with the thought that in that case there > was no point to introduce a goto if there was nothing to share. That's one perspective. But think of it this way, if there is a seqeuence of labels already and you're scanning for a large body of code for control transfers during an audit, what are your eyes more likely to miss? A sequence goto statements targetting well named and distinct labels or that "return" hidding there somewhere in the middle? -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists