linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 26/76] tty: Add a kref count

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]

Message-ID: <20081006105225.GA9606@shell.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:52:25 -0400
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
To:	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/76] tty: Add a kref count

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:20:37PM +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled by this 'tty_kref_put(p->signal->tty)'. AFAICS, this is a noop
> since we are not in the CLONE_THREAD case and hence p->signal->tty == NULL.

When I first did it I was seeing non NULL values, but since then I've added
the initialisation

> So, is it to make the code look more consistent? If so, is it worth adding extra
> code and cycles for this (I doubt that gcc is able to optimize this away)? What
> kind of future changes should this code protect against?

I'll take a look, you may well be right, and if so it can become a WARN_ON()
instead.
--
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/