On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:24:58 +0200
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> See, some of your patches are accepted, e.g. the memdup_user changes have
> usually
> been applied by most maintainers including myself. If maintainers won't take
> other change,
> please accept that. If you continue to waste peo
>>How much will it matter in general that two function calls are performed
>>in this use case without checking their return values immediately?
>>https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/252.html
>>
>> if (!names || !callbacks || !vqs) { …
>>
>>https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definiti
On 09/13/2016 07:30 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, I get an other impression here after a closer look.
>
> Can it be that the discussed commit from 2016-08-09 accepted (or tolerated)
> two weaknesses at least?
>
> 1. Commit title:
>Is the word "slient" a typo?
>Would
> In addition, please have a look at commit
> 347a529398e8e723338cca5d8a8ae2d9e7e93448
> virtio_blk: Fix a slient kernel panic
I would like to add another view on the implementation details in this software
update.
> which did the opposite of your patch.
This update contained a different
>> drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 22 +-
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Can't you see from this diffstat that the patch actually seems to makes
> the code more complex?
I find that the repeated usage of a bit more error handling code is almost
unavoidab
On 09/13/2016 02:13 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:20:44 +0200
>
> The kfree() function was called in up to three cases
> by the init_vq() function during error handling even if
> the passed variable contained a null pointer.
>
> * Split a conditi
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:20:44 +0200
The kfree() function was called in up to three cases
by the init_vq() function during error handling even if
the passed variable contained a null pointer.
* Split a condition check for memory allocation failures.
* Adjust jump targets a
7 matches
Mail list logo
