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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:25:03 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> Cc: Alice Ferrazzi <alice.ferrazzi@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <shuah@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] selftest/bpf: remove redundant parenthesis On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:15:52 +0000, Edward Cree wrote: > On 12/12/18 19:04, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:56:06 +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Alice Ferrazzi <alice.ferrazzi@...il.com> > >> --- > >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_offload.py | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_offload.py b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_offload.py > >> index 0f9130ebfd2c..b06cc0eea0eb 100755 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_offload.py > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_offload.py > >> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ def cmd_result(proc, include_stderr=False, fail=False): > >> > >> > >> def rm(f): > >> - cmd("rm -f %s" % (f)) > >> + cmd("rm -f %s" % f) > >> if f in files: > >> files.remove(f) > >> > > Is this in PEP8, too? > I don't know, but it shouldn't be. > If f is a sequence type, both the old and new code can break here, > throwing a TypeError. It should be cmd("rm -f %s" % (f,)). The > presence of the brackets suggests to me that that's what the > original author intended. Agreed, that was my intention, I didn't know about the comma option. > Now, it's unlikely that we'd ever want to pass a list or tuple > here, since 'rm' wouldn't understand the result, but the proper > way to deal with that is an assertion with a meaningful message, > since the TypeError here will have the non-obvious message "not > all arguments converted during string formatting". Interesting, thanks for the analysis!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists