linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8188eu: core: Use list_for_each_entry

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:40:12 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8188eu: core: Use
 list_for_each_entry_safe

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:39:30PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:58:32AM +0530, Srishti Sharma wrote:
> > > Use list_for_each_entry_safe when the list elements may get deleted
> > > during traversal.
> >
> > This patch is fine as a cleanup but none of these are actually buggy.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are getting at with the comment.  The commit doesn't
> say that they were buggy.  Perhaps the commit message could have been more
> verbose, like "Use list operators on list_head values.
> List_for_each_entry_safe is needed because the list elements get deleted
                           ^^^^^^^^^

It is not *needed*, the original code works fine.  The problem with the
original code, is that it's ugly as sin.

> during the traversal"?

The changelog needs to say *why* we're applying the patch.  At first I
thought it was going to fix a use after free.  What I would prefer in
the changelog is something like:  "This patch is a cleanup and doesn't
change runtime behavior.  It changes an open coded list traversal to
use list_for_each_entry_safe."

regards,
dan carpenter