On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:34 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Well, there isn't any _literal_ linking (e.g. adding to a link list,
>> etc) in this case. We just bump some refs and do probe to fill in the
>> newly allocated parent.
>
> Thanks for your clarification.
>
>
>> The actual linking (rbd_dev->parent = parent) is done right before
>> returning so we never have to undo it in rbd_dev_probe_parent() and
>> that's the only reason your patch probably doesn't break anything.
>
> Is this function implementation just also affected by an issue
> which is mentioned in the Linux document "CodingStyle" as "one err bugs"?
No, why? "one err bug" as per CodingStyle is a NULL deref on line 2 if
foo is NULL. If it was just "err: kfree(foo); return ret;", a NULL foo
would be perfectly OK.
1 err:
2 kfree(foo->bar);
3 kfree(foo);
4 return ret;
If you can spot such a NULL deref in rbd_dev_probe_parent(), I'd gladly
take a patch.
>
>
>> Think about what happens if, after your patch is applied, someone moves
>> that assignment up or adds an extra step that can fail after it...
>
> Is such a software maintenance concern really enough to delay (or reject)
> my second update suggestion in this small patch series?
Yes - it's rejected because it messes up the order of cleanup for no
good reason. I realize why you think the patch is correct and it's not
without merit, but it just doesn't fit the weird rbd_dev_probe_parent()
contract.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
