netdev - Reply: [net] bonding: use return instead of goto

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000001d160ce$52b81420$f8283c60$@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 Feb 2016 19:05:40 +0800
From:	张胜举 <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:	"'Jarod Wilson'" <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc:	<j.vosburgh@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Reply: [net] bonding: use return instead of goto

> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:42:24AM +0800, 张胜举 wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:15:22AM +0000, Zhang Shengju wrote:
> > > > Replace 'goto' with 'return' to remove unnecessary check at label:
> > > > err_undo_flags.
> > >
> > > I think you're going to have to explain how you came to the
> > > conclusion that the check isn't necessary.
> ...
> > The reason is that 'err_undo_flags' do two things for the first slave
> > device:
> > 1. revert bond mac address if it is set by the slave device.
> > 2. revert bond device type if it's not ARPHRD_ETHER.
> >
> > I think it's not necessary for the three places, they changed neither
> > bond mac address nor type.
> > it's straightforward to return directly.
> 
> I see what you're saying, and that does look to be true if you're only adding a
> singular first device right now. But looking at the enslave and release paths, I
> don't see anything preventing concurrent slave adds and removes, which
> could mean there are situations where those checks really are necessary. I
> don't actually know.
> 
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod@...hat.com

All of three places don't change any attributes of bond device, 
just for sanity check before enslaving.  
If it's necessary for these three places to goto 'err_undo_flags',  
it will mean that all sanity checks before these three places need to do so, which is not right clearly. 

Even there is concurrent situation which make the check necessary, which I haven't figure out yet,
it's not right place to do this.  

Thanks,
Shengju