linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/16] signal: prepare for CLD

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:35:52 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] signal: prepare for CLD_* notification changes

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 05:21:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > @@ -1640,6 +1684,7 @@ static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk, int why)
> >   	}
> >
> >  	sighand = parent->sighand;
> > +	sig = parent->signal;
> 
> This looks unneeded.

Yeah, it's unneeded but sighand and sig are used earlier in the
function to point to the respective structures of the child while in
the latter part for the parent.  I was afraid a later change to the
parent part might incorrectly use sig not realizing that it's still
pointing to the child->signal, so I think it would be better to keep
the unnecessary chunk for now.  Or we can introduce separate variables
for child and parent.  Hmmm... yeah, that actually would be better, I
think.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/