netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: Clean up tests if NULL returned on failure

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: <CALrZqyPeR6X1RrqOsGfLbbZ2rPQgOf=50Rs+ot0kxkkA464V5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:53:30 +0530
From:   SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
To:     Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
Cc:     wensong@...ux-vs.org, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        coreteam@...filter.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel <outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: Clean up tests if NULL returned on failure

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2017-03-28 15:13, simran singhal wrote:
>
>>Some functions like kmalloc/kzalloc return NULL on failure. When NULL
>>represents failure, !x is commonly used.
>>
>>@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ ip_vs_new_dest(struct ip_vs_service *svc, struct ip_vs_dest_user_kern *udest,
>>       }
>>
>>       dest = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ip_vs_dest), GFP_KERNEL);
>>-      if (dest == NULL)
>>+      if (!dest)
>>               return -ENOMEM;
>
> This kind of transformation however is not cleanup anymore, it's really
> bikeshedding and should be avoided. There are pro and cons for both
> variants, and there is not really an overwhelming number of arguments
> for either variant to justify the change.

Sorry, but I didn't get what you are trying to convey. And particularly pros and
cons of both variants.