From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key read
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 22:21:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200320222113.GB5284@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200320221918.GA5284@linux.intel.com>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:19:27AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Would move this label before condition instead of jumping inside the
> nested block since it will always evaluate correctly.
>
> To this version haven't really gotten why you don't use a legit loop
> construct but instead jump from one random nested location to another
> random nested location? This construct will be somewhat nasty to
> maintain. The construct is weird enough that you should have rather
> good explanation in the long description why such a mess.
What I'm saying that if I fix a bug, the first version of the fix
would probably look something like this is right now. They I think
how to write it right. We don't want fixes that just happen to work.
Right now I'm worried to take this in since I'm not confident that
I haven't some possible corner case, or might still have gotten
something just plain wrong.
/Jarkko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key read
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:21:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200320222113.GB5284@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200320221918.GA5284@linux.intel.com>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:19:27AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Would move this label before condition instead of jumping inside the
> nested block since it will always evaluate correctly.
>
> To this version haven't really gotten why you don't use a legit loop
> construct but instead jump from one random nested location to another
> random nested location? This construct will be somewhat nasty to
> maintain. The construct is weird enough that you should have rather
> good explanation in the long description why such a mess.
What I'm saying that if I fix a bug, the first version of the fix
would probably look something like this is right now. They I think
how to write it right. We don't want fixes that just happen to work.
Right now I'm worried to take this in since I'm not confident that
I haven't some possible corner case, or might still have gotten
something just plain wrong.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-20 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-20 19:19 [PATCH v6 0/2] KEYS: Read keys to internal buffer & then copy to userspace Waiman Long
2020-03-20 19:19 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-20 19:19 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] KEYS: Don't write out to userspace while holding key semaphore Waiman Long
2020-03-20 19:19 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-20 19:19 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key read Waiman Long
2020-03-20 19:19 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-20 22:19 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-03-20 22:19 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-03-20 22:21 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2020-03-20 22:21 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-03-21 1:51 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-21 1:51 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200320222113.GB5284@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=crecklin@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.