netdev - Re: [patch] sctp: fix test for end of loop

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, 7 Sep 2010 13:31:15 +0200
From:	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:	Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...oscopio.com>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sctp: fix test for end of loop

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:46:58PM +0800, Shan Wei wrote:
> Dan Carpenter wrote, at 09/06/2010 08:26 PM:
> > +	    &new_addr->transports != &new_asoc->peer.transport_addr_list) {
> 
> why did you add this check?
> 

That's the check which tells us if we broke out of the loop or if we
came to the end of the list.

As I explained before, the only way that the check matters is if the
list is empty.  With the current code I do not think we ever call this
function with an empty list, so that check is not needed.  But the code
could change I suppose and it doesn't hurt to be cautious.  On the other
hand, I'm fine with removing the check as well.

regards,
dan carpenter

> 
> -- 
> Best Regards
> -----
> Shan Wei
--
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