netdev - Re: [PATCH] proc: proc_create() should return true if CONFIG_PROC

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: <CAPFHKzcLsL9Sb_ma4_XCm4a0kX_iNcCdFVXf346wtnmOPqWcEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:48:30 -0500
From:	Jonathon Reinhart <jonathon.reinhart@...il.com>
To:	Zhang Zhaolong <zhangzl2013@....com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: proc_create() should return true if CONFIG_PROC_FS
 is not configured

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Zhang Zhaolong <zhangzl2013@....com> wrote:
>
> proc_create() should return true if CONFIG_PROC_FS is not configured.
> Otherwise if-statement like this "if (!proc_create())" would go to the false path.

Does that even compile? proc_create() and proc_create_data() both return
"struct proc_dir_entry *". It doesn't make sense for those macros to "return"
anything but NULL - certainly not 1.

Besides, why shouldn't "if (!proc_create())" behave like proc_create()
failed when
CONFIG_PROC_FS is not enabled?  You wouldn't want the caller to start trying
to use that ((struct proc_dir_entry *)1) would you?
--
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