netdev - Re: [Patch net 2/2] net_sched: always call ->destroy when ->init() fails

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: <20141028.155826.702750675122810384.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:58:26 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kaber@...sh.net
Cc:	cwang@...pensource.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	wang.bo116@....com.cn, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, vtlam@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [Patch net 2/2] net_sched: always call ->destroy when ->init()
 fails

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:04:00 +0100

>> Really, we don't have to make all ->init() doing cleanup by itself.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better to have ->destroy()
> check what parts were actually initialized and what needs to be cleaned
> up instead of assuming a consistent state and have the only function that
> actually knows the current state on error (->init()) do its own cleanup?
> 
> That's not even worth arguing about, its utterly and completely wrong.

I agree with Patrick here.
--
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