netdev - Re: can: Use common error handling code in vxcan

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: <5a76bb36-4ae0-eca2-ae34-69c2bfddb634@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2017 20:33:09 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()

> So if you would like to change the if-statement:

It will need a small adjustment for the shown transformation.

I was also unsure if the proposal will work in a single update step.


> 1. Send a patch for vxcan.c to improve the error handling flow

I am going to send a second approach for this update variant.


> 2. Send a separate patch for all rtnl_configure_link() callers to unify the result check
> 
> Step 2 is optional ... and prepare yourself for more feedback ;-)

I am curious on how software development aspects will evolve around
desired error predicates.
Which scope did you have in mind?

Regards,
Markus