netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: bareudp: add missing error handling for bareudp_link

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUTZ9ZOAgfWjBP83Q9J3UFpVKbueboAs7uQFFuieyDfug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 22:22:05 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        martin.varghese@...ia.com, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bareudp: add missing error handling for bareudp_link_config()

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:49 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 15:49:54 -0800 Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:46 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -661,9 +662,14 @@ static int bareudp_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> > >
> > >         err = bareudp_link_config(dev, tb);
> > >         if (err)
> > > -               return err;
> > > +               goto err_unconfig;
> > >
> > >         return 0;
> > > +
> > > +err_unconfig:
> >
> > I think we can save this goto.
>
> I personally prefer more idiomatic code flow to saving a single LoC.
>
> > > +       list_del(&bareudp->next);
> > > +       unregister_netdevice(dev);
> >
> > Which is bareudp_dellink(dev, NULL). ;)
>
> I know, but calling full dellink when only parts of newlink fails felt
> weird. And it's not lower LoC, unless called with NULL as second arg,
> which again could be surprising to a person changing dellink.

I think calling a function with "bareudp_" prefix is more readable
than interpreting list_del()+unregister_netdevice(). I mean

if (bareudp_*())
  goto err;
...
err:
bareudp_*();

this looks cleaner, right?

Thanks.