netdev - Re: [PATCH 34/40] atm: simplify procfs code

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: <87efibjd5i.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 20:15:21 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/40] atm: simplify procfs code

Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:

> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 07:51:18AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
>> 
>> > Use remove_proc_subtree to remove the whole subtree on cleanup, and
>> > unwind the registration loop into individual calls.  Switch to use
>> > proc_create_seq where applicable.
>> 
>> Can you please explain why you are removing the error handling when
>> you are unwinding the registration loop?
>
> Because there is no point in handling these errors.  The code work
> perfectly fine without procfs, or without given proc files and the
> removal works just fine if they don't exist either.  This is a very
> common patter in various parts of the kernel already.
>
> I'll document it better in the changelog.

Thank you.  That is the kind of thing that could be a signal of
inattentiveness and problems, especially when it is not documented.

Eric