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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:34:33 +0100 From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>, gregkh@...e.com, linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: race in sysfs between sysfs_remove_file() and read()/write() #2 Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:57 schrieb Alan Stern: > I was referring to sysfs_remove_file(), not sysfs_open_file() -- I agree > that getting rid of the check_perm() routine is good. But this isn't: > > > void sysfs_remove_file(struct kobject * kobj, const struct attribute * attr) > > { > > - sysfs_hash_and_remove(kobj->dentry,attr->name); > > + struct dentry *d = kobj->dentry; > > + > > + sysfs_hash_and_remove(d, attr->name); > > } > > There's no apparent advantage to introducing the local variable d, either > in terms of execution speed or readability. (Although the original source > line should have a space after the comma.) Yes, correct, it is a remainder of using the dentry twice in that routine. Then a local variable saved a recomputation. I can redo it, sorry. However, it doesn't affect correctness, so I won't distract further by doing an essentially cosmetic change. Regards Oliver - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists