netdev - Re: [PATCH][NETNS] Use list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse in setup

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:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:07:14 +0200
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][NETNS] Use list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse in
 setup_net

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:41:07 -0600
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:39:32 +0400
> > Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I proposed introducing a list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse
> >> macro to be used in setup_net() when unrolling the failed
> >> ->init callback.
> >> 
> >> Here is the macro and some more cleanup in the setup_net() itself
> >> to remove one variable from the stack :) Minor, but the code
> >> looks nicer.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> >
> > Maybe it is time to just eliminate the init hook from the API.
> > It has very few users, and there is no reason the setup needed
> > could be done before or after registering in most cases.
> 
> I guess only have 5 out of the 29 users I have in my full patchset
> is few.  But that is to be expected because so far only the core
> has been converted.
> 
> I looked again at the initialization to see if you had a point about
> the initialization but in every instance I looked at the function
> was performing work that needed to happen during the creation of
> each network namespace.  So the work very much needs to be done there.
> 
> Ok looking some more I can see why this isn't obvious yet.  copy_net_ns
> hasn't been merged yet, and that is where we create new network namespaces.
> And call setup_net on each new network namespace.
> 
> I will take a look at that patch and see if I can come up with a
> safe version of it to merge to allow for a little more transparency.

Could we just make it so dev->init is not allowed to fail? Then it
can be a void function and the nasty unwind code can go?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html