netdev - Re: [PATCH] skbuff: remove pointless conditional before kfree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:39:28 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	fbl@...hat.com, weiyj.lk@...il.com, yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skbuff: remove pointless conditional before kfree_skb()

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:38:48 -0700

> On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 17:39 -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> 
>> Ok, and what if kfree_skb() becomes a macro that first checks
>> if the skb is NULL and if not, call the _kfree_skb() to
>> continue as before?
>> 
>> #define kfree_skb(skb)		\
>>         if (skb)		\
>> 		_kfree_skb(skb)	\
> 
> Then its adding a conditional test on each call site and increase
> kernel code size.
> 
> So if you plan submitting such patch, please keep the whole thing out of
> line.

I'm tossing this entire series.

Each and every case must be investigated individually and:

1) If the check is kept, a big comment explaining why is added
   to the code.

2) If the check is removed, a big piece of explanatory text is
   added to the commit log message explaining everything in
   full detail.
--
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