netdev - Re: [PATCH] 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: <d3bdd3c0-5a03-dd59-07ca-94b126c67f75@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:23:02 +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: [PATCH] can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()

>> @@ -227,10 +227,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
>>       netif_carrier_off(peer);
>>         err = rtnl_configure_link(peer, ifmp);
>> -    if (err < 0) {
>> -        unregister_netdevice(peer);
>> -        return err;
>> -    }
>> +    if (err)
>> +        goto unregister_network_device;
> 
> You are changing semantic in the if-statement here.

I got an other software development opinion for this implementation detail.

http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.14-rc6/source/net/core/rtnetlink.c#L2393
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/net/core/rtnetlink.c?id=36ef71cae353f88fd6e095e2aaa3e5953af1685d#n2513

The success predicate for the function “rtnl_configure_link” is that
the return value is zero. I would prefer to treat other values as
an error code then.


> I would be fine with the patch

Thanks for a bit of change acceptance.


> if you revert that if-statement as I would like to stay on the behavior
> from veth.c in veth_newlink().

Will another bit of clarification be useful around the usage of error predicates?

Regards,
Markus